linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

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]

Message-ID: <46A6471F.1090003@shadowen.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:38:23 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
CC:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jul 24 2007 12:33, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Warning on multiple declarations on a line is nice, but IMO really too
>>> verbose (why is "int i, j;" bad? Did C somehow change syntax today?).
>> No the normal response is two fold:
>>
>> 1) "what the heck are i and j those are meaningless names"
> 
> Can we at least assume the submitter is sane in some ways?
> i and j are picked for obvious iterater values - you would not want
> verbosify that to fruit_iterator and process_iterator or whatever
> because it's a hell lot more typing.
> It takes more than a few Perl regexes to actually grasp the semantics
> of whether "i" is useful or not.

I was mearly quoting the what I'd seen.  I am completely ambivalent on
the whole process.  I had assumed when we updated the documentation to
strongly indicate that this was a style guide not a robot with patch
veto power that people would realise they could ignore those things they
disagreed with and things would be good.	

checkpatch is only intended to tell you what a Reviewer is likely to
pick up and winge about and is intended to save _them_ time, their time
generally being more limited that yours if for no other reason than you
want your patch in, and they may have no vested interest.

That said I want it to be as unannoying as we can and we will have
loosened most of the checks you do not like in the next release.

-apw

-
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/