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: <20090216155023.GA4422@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:50:23 +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:
> > 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".

Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be 
mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable.

	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/