linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071230172250.GD22833@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:22:50 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken


* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:

> orig:
> mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
> new (could be):
> mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1);
> 
> Is a new version that bad?

it's certainly acceptable as newly introduced code but only borderline 
better than the original code. I'd suggest to stick to the problem areas 
that checkpatch.pl complains about at the moment - we have really 
obvious bad looking pieces of code that checkpatch.pl reports, and going 
after the borderline cases will only result in coding-style lawyering 
and flamewars, not any genuine increase in code quality ;-)

for example:

  arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c:

  total: 19 errors, 2 warnings, 98 lines checked

or:

  arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c:

  total: 56 errors, 31 warnings, 2402 lines checked

and once we have nothing but the borderline cases and if we get really 
bored we can start coding style flamewars ;-)

	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/