linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --typedefsfile

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:   Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:59:56 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@...aro.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --typedefsfile

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 17:41 +0200, Jerome Forissier wrote:
> On 04/21/2017 08:31 AM, Jerome Forissier wrote:
> > On 04/20/2017 06:49 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 17:39 +0200, Jerome Forissier wrote:
> > > > When using checkpatch on out-of-tree code, it may occur that some
> > > > project-specific types are used, which will cause spurious warnings.
> > > > Add the --typedefsfile option as a way to extend the known types and
> > > > deal with this issue.
> > > 
> > > I'm not opposed to the addition.
> > > What out-of-tree project is this for?
> > 
> > OP-TEE [1]. We run a Travis job on all pull requests [2], and checkpatch
> > is part of that. The typical false warning we get on a regular basis is
> > with some pointers to functions returning TEE_Result [3], which is a
> > typedef from the GlobalPlatform APIs. We consider it is acceptable to
> > use GP types in the OP-TEE core implementation, that's why this patch
> > would be helpful for us.
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os
> > [2] https://travis-ci.org/OP-TEE/optee_os/builds
> > [3] https://travis-ci.org/OP-TEE/optee_os/builds/193355335#L1733 
> 
> Ping?

It's a well written patch.

But I'll leave it up to Andrew Morton to accept/reject this.

I'm not opposed to it though as it seems reasonable because
using a checkpatch command-line --ignore=NEW_TYPEDEFS may
not be the right solution for your use case.