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]

Message-ID: <ea11fea30902160741n77294e80nc44947882468f1eb@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:11:54 +0530
From:	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in 
	kernel/kallsyms.c

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Stefan Richter
<stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak,
>> ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug
>> or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to
>> mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already
>> got merged. I dont understand your point.
>
> I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what
> the effect of the patch is and describe this".
>
> It's not really a hard problem to mention checkpatch --- it is a problem
> to make it the main point or, like in this case, the only point of the
> changelog.  (Furthermore, it is also a problem to do something routinely
> *if* doing it does not make sense.  There routinely appear coccinelle
> metapatch sources in changelogs.  That does not make sense at all, and
> doing it routinely is not a justification in itself.)
>
> So, "don't mention checkpatch" is simply a rule of thumb; read it as "I
> mentioned checkpatch in the changelog --- wait, I have possibly written
> a changelog that is besides the point; I should think about it once
> more".  :-)
>
> Now, when this particular patch is updated to get a good changelog, then
> the title could become e.g.:
>        kernel/kallsyms: change initcall level; adjust whitespace
> and anything more than that is just fluff and wasted electrons. Actually
> the changelog should rather contain a note on why device_initcall is
> supposed to be the correct initcall level.
>
> Fixes due to reports from sparse, lockdep, coverity, coccinelle, etc.
> are the in this respect the same as fixes due to reports from
> checkpatch:  Patch titles should for example be
>  - "fix potential deadlock..."
>  - "fix use-after free..."
>  - "use XYZ helper..."
>  - "adjust whitespace..."
> and *not* something like "fix lockdep backtrace" or whatever.
>
> A difference would be a patch title like "add sparse annotations"
> because this is indeed about what the patch does, not by which means it
> was created.
>
> Why do I make a fuzz?  Well, because many of our changelogs really suck
> and we need to become better in general.

Hi Stefan/Ingo/Sam and others,

Thanks a lot for all your feedbacks. It's a new learning for me and I
will ensure that I don't repeat the same mistakes next time. Will
resend all the patches with a new subject and more sensible changelog.

Thanks -
Manish


> --
> Stefan Richter
> -=====-=-=== -=-= -==-=
> http://arcgraph.de/sr/
>
--
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/