linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

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: <20070928092235.GA31180@shadowen.org>
Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:22:35 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:01:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
> > reported to you earlier:
> > 
> >   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> >   #2319:
> >   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> 
> That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities which
> I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.
> 
> But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and from
> patches which later alter that code.  A bit.

I tend to agree, watching the automatic replies from checkpatch, the
majority of these are "justifiable" in their context.  I think I'll
lower this one to a CHECK 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/