linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c

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:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:19:17 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in
	kernel/kallsyms.c

* Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> Furthermore, the changelog is bad (non-exiting in fact).
> >> 
> >> The fact that the issues where discovered using checkpatch is absolutely
> >> uninteresting.  The changelog should describe /what/ is fixed, [...]
> > 
> > The commit log definitely needs enhancements but it's not uninteresting 
> > at all what tools were used to arrive to a change. [...] if a
> > good and acceptable commit results out of a tool's usage then that tool 
> > needs to be advertised some more.)
> 
> Fine, then the author could mention it below the --- delimitor in the 
> patch posting.  The changelog however, as annotation of the source 
> history, is not a billboard.  We also don't describe for example that 
> a nice cup of hot Earl Grey or whatever was vital to the creation of a 
> patch.

Well there's a difference between a nice cup of tea (that really has no 
direct connection to kernel development) and a tool that is in the Linux 
kernel specifically for the purpose of helping keep code clean, and that 
was used to come up with a cleanup.

We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, 
ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug 
or uncleanliness. We routinely mention checkpatch as well when it 
catches an uncleanliness in a submitted patch. It is absolutely fine to 
mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already 
got merged. I dont understand your point.

	Ingo
--
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/