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

Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:58:21 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch

Alan Stern wrote:
> 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?
> 

Personally, I rather strongly prefer (*(type *)ptr).

	-hpa
--
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/