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]

Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:50:15 -0500
From:	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

> The only question is whether this should default to on.  You are voting
> off.  I personally think on.
> 
> Andrew?  Randy?  Joel?

The main audience of this is new contributors, who should have more verbose 
output, including nitpicky things like multiple assignments per line.  The 
default should target them.  More advanced users can certainly use a flag 
that says "give me only the real errors".

It might be a good idea to have three levels.
--really-errors
--really-picky
--really-experimental

Only with better names.  --really-picky would be default, but would only 
include tests that have a very very high ratio of hits to false positives, 
but would still call out things like multiple assignments per line. 
--really-errors we could call the Igno level.  --really-experimental would 
call out all issues, even on checks that generate a fair number of false 
positives.

-Joel

-
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/