linux-kernel - Re: latest checkpatch

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: <20071018193929.GA22031@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:39:29 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: latest checkpatch


* Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:

> > it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl 
> > wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about 
> > the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block 
> > _except_ the only safe single-line statement:
> > 
> > 	if (x)
> > 		y();
> 
> Indeed.  We should probabally do more on the indentation checks in
> general.  The current direct check for:
> 
> 	if (foo);
> 		bar();
> 
> Could probabally be generalised to look for this kind of error:
> 
> 	if (foo)
> 		bar();
> 		baz();
> 	one();

detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug 
because the intent is often to have bar() and baz() in the conditional 
block.

	Ingo
-
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/