linux-kernel - Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

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:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where
> you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump
> labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the
> output of checkpatch (how is that related?) and now you pull statistics
> out of your hat, like these numbers imply anything.

No, not out of a hat.  Those are the results of a silly script that
runs checkpatch on every .[ch] kernel file (but not tools/) with:

	--show-types --terse --emacs --strict --no-summary --quiet -f

The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful
to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude.

> checkpatch was called checkPATCH for a reason.

That's why I promote the --force option to limit using checkpatch on
files outside of staging.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332205/

Andrew?  Are you going to apply that one day?

> ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period.

Disagree.  The compiler doesn't care.  The value of consistency in
reducing defects is very hard to quantify.