linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Deprecate checkpatch.pl --file

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:	Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:20:48 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...dowen.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deprecate checkpatch.pl --file

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:01:19AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > It is a simple pain/benefit issue.
> > Fixing the 25 errors and 13 warnings in kernel/profile.c may look
> > like an easy task but then we put additional burden on the 10 people
> > that have patches pending for this file.
> 
> This goes for all patches on kernel/profile.c tho .. If I make a big mod
> to kernel/profile.c, that will screw up anyone else who has patches for
> that file..

Obviously, but why make it worse?  And what's more important?  A
"clean tree" (especially when some of the things that checkpatch.pl
flag are arbitrary and Not All That Important), or wasting developers'
time invalidating potentially huge number of patches thanks to cleanup
patches?

							- Ted
--
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/