linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] ocfs2 update

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:17:06 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, Joel.Becker@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [git patches] ocfs2 update

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:37:15 -0800
Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com> wrote:

> > Please integrate checkpatch into your processes - this one had a few little
> > glitches.
> 
> FWIW - I've run all patches through checkpatch.pl since your last review.

cool, thanks.

> This one went through a couple cycles of checkpatch actually :) There's
> three warnings that I get:
> 
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> #70: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmapi.h:200:
> +struct dlm_ctxt * dlm_register_domain(const char *domain, u32 key,
> 
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #269: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:813:
> +
> #&dlm->fs_locking_proto,
> 
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #270: FILE: fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:814:
> +
> #&query->fs_proto)) {
> 
> total: 1 errors, 2 warnings, 569 lines checked
> 
> 
> The "foo * bar" one is from existing code which got moved, and I felt that
> leaving them unmodified was cleaner from a patch-reading perspective.

I tend to clean those things up as we go, because it's a free patch.

otoh I see that dlm style is presently space-after-asterisk so there's not
a lot of point in fixing just one of them.

> The over 80 characters warnings were ignored as the code seemed more
> readable as-is.

yes, I tend to ignore those warnings unless the mess is really gratuitous or
if the surrounding code has obviously made some effort to avoid the problem.

> I guess a lot of this can be subjective though, so I can be super strict if
> you really feel it's necessary.

No, you shouldn't view checkpatch as a things-i-must-do.  It is a
things-i-might-have-missed tool.  If you _meant_ things to be that way then
fine, ignore it.
--
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/