[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <605ae631bccba303aac01edd6702cb28d8940fef.camel@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 13:23:03 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Explain the desired position of function
attributes
On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 12:05 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:58 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > While discussing how to format the addition of various function
> > attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as
> > close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference.
> >
> > (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and
> > others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.)
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> While I appreciate you getting the ball across the finish line (having
> _any_ documentation to point to in future bikesheds), I can't help but
> shake the feeling that the chosen policy will harm the ability of
> existing automated code formatting tools from being able to automate
> code formatting on the kernel.
yup.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists