linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Deprecate checkpatch.pl --file mode; add warning; add --file-force

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080128145911.GJ12910@shadowen.org>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:59:11 +0000
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	rdunlap@...otime.net, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deprecate checkpatch.pl --file mode; add warning; add --file-force

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Deprecate checkpatch.pl --file mode; add warning; add --file-force
> 
> As discussed on linux-kernel checkpatch.pl only patches for whole
> files have a significant cost. Better such changes should be only
> done together with other changes. Add a explicit warning about
> this; deprecate --file and add a --file-force instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>

Cirtainly I can see why we want this
warning out there and very much in the submitters face, it just feels a
little heavy handed to make them change option to get the result.

Would not just always appending this message in --file mode always be
just as effective?  Perhaps suppressing it with -q, or with some new "i
know what I am doing" option?

-apw
--
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/