linux-kernel - Possible false positive in checkpatch

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0808121017510.2509-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>
cc:	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Possible false positive in checkpatch

The following appears to be a false positive in checkpatch:

ERROR: space prohibited after that '*' (ctx:BxW)
#163: FILE: drivers/usb/core/usb.c:304:
+#define usb_device_pm_ops      (* (struct pm_ops *) 0)
                                 ^

Certainly this is a rather uncommon code construction, but similar
ones might occur elsewhere.  To my eyes,

	(* (type *) ptr)

looks better than

	(*(type *) ptr)

or

	(*(type *)ptr)

or even

	(*(type*)ptr)

but of course this is a matter of opinion.  Is there any strong feeling 
about this in the kernel community?

Alan Stern

--
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/