linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging/ozwpan: coding style ether_addr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:43:35 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Jérôme Pinot <ngc891@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging/ozwpan: coding style ether_addr_copy

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:23:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 02:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > These days in the kernel we treat checkpatch.pl and GCC
> > warnings the same so it sucks when they are something conditional.
> 
> Treating checkpatch messages like gcc compilation warnings
> and failures has got to change.
> 
> There is _no way_ checkpatch can have no false positives.
> 

We could argue back and forth, but for now lets just revert the
ether_addr_copy() check because people ignore the alignement requirement
and it just encourages people to introduce bugs.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/