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: <20070724194901.GE6019@stusta.de>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:49:01 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:31:35PM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Jul 25 2007 02:22, Paul Mundt wrote:
> >> Perhaps CodingStyle can start being versioned, so people can opt out of
> >> certain 'improvements' whenever someone has a vision, much like some
> >> nameless licenses.
> > 
> > I'd say Codingstyle is versioned by means of git commit IDs.
> > 
> >> Personally I prefer the second style, and if there's a comment block,
> >> then it makes sense to complete the tree with {}'s (the keyword here is
> >> prefer, as it's a personal preference). checkpatch has been quite useful
> >> for catching obviously broken things, and now it seems like it's just
> >> overreaching. Perhaps this functionality can be split in to a lite
> >> checkpatch for catching show-stoppers for application and then something
> >> more akin to a CodingStyle validator for the folks interested in
> >> arbitrarily defining convention, which they can use freely while the rest
> >> of us try to get something useful done.
> > 
> > /me thinks of ... checkpath --check-me-harder
> 
> Yep I think the consensus is we need a
> "--i-don't-agree-just-check-things-which-will-get-me-rejected-out-of-hand"
> option of some sort which will restrict output to the real errors.

No, the default should be to show only the real errors.

> -apw

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/