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: <46A666CE.4010905@austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:53:34 -0500
From:	jschopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
CC:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

>> So, no we shouldn't separate out CodingStyle because
>>
>> Better CodingStyle == less bugs
>>
>> and
>>
>> Better CodingStyle == more throughput for maintainers
> 
> To some extent yes.
> 
> But extreme codingstyling won't gain you anything.
> 
> Except for long and fruitless discussions.
> 
> If a tool says anything would be wrong with the line of C code
> 	int i, j;
> for two loop variables, then the tool is wrong because that's an idiom 
> every C programmer knows and understands.

I'm fine with whatever we decide is acceptable coding style, and changing the tool to 
match is work I'm willing to do.  If we decide declaring multiple variables on one line is 
bad, except if they are named i,j, or k then that's fine.  If we decide declaring 22 
variables per line is OK but 23 per line is bad then I'm fine with that.

If a check doesn't complain about bad code hundreds of times for every 1 time it complains 
about good code we will fix the check or remove the check entirely.

Andy already removed the multiple variable declaration per line check for the next version 
for that reason, it complained about arguably good code too often (to be fair many would 
say int i, j; is bad code).  Someday when we get the check fixed to handle sane multiple 
variable declarations better I'd like to add the check back in so the insane multiple 
variable declarations gets warned.

-
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/