linux-kernel - [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071225170737.GA3887@cvg.org>
Date:	Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:07:37 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken

Hi list,

by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that
checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example,
run it over edd.c showed only one warning:

---
cyrill@cvg linux-2.6.git $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file arch/x86/boot/edd.c 
WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
#45: FILE: x86/boot/edd.c:45:
+       extern char _end[];

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 167 lines checked

Your patch has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
---

but on line 53 we have:

mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);

so checkpatch should at least worn me about missed space
btw math operators. Am I wrong?


--
BTW, is there someone who is already involved in a such
cleanup to eliminate double effort?

			- Cyrill -

--
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/