lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:52:45 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
	Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [PATCH] checkpatch: Add comment about
 updating Documentation/CodingStyle

On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 18:34 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'd suggest a couple more, which
> *should* always make sense, and to the best of my knowledge don't tend
> to generate false positives:
> 
> C99_COMMENTS

I don't have a problem with c99 comments.
As far as I know, Linus doesn't either.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/16/473

> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
> CVS_KEYWORD

OK, but <shrug>

> ELSE_AFTER_BRACE

I wouldn't do this one.  I think
there are some false positives here.

> GLOBAL_INITIALIZERS
> INITIALISED_STATIC

Nor these.

> INVALID_UTF8
> LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> MISSING_EOF_NEWLINE

OK I suppose.

> PREFER_SEQ_PUTS
> PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL

There are a lot of these.
I suggest no here.

> RETURN_PARENTHESES
> SIZEOF_PARENTHESIS

It's in coding style, but some newish patches
do avoid them.  It's a question about how noisy
you want your robot to be.

> SPACE_BEFORE_TAB
> TRAILING_SEMICOLON
> TRAILING_WHITESPACE
> USE_DEVICE_INITCALL

> USE_RELATIVE_PATH

Having checkpatch tell people how to write changelogs
I think not a great idea.

> These *ought* to make sense, but I don't know their false positive rates:
> 
> HEXADECIMAL_BOOLEAN_TEST

That's a good one.  0 false positives.

> ALLOC_ARRAY_ARGS

Yes, this would be reasonable too.

> CONSIDER_KSTRTO

I think orobably not.  This would be a cleanup thing.

> CONST_STRUCT

OK

> SPLIT_STRING

I suggest no but <shrug>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ