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 17:13:01 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.

I'm arguing that in all those other cases the method "think about what
the effect of the patch is and describe this"¹ applies just as well, and
that the mentioning of the tools used does not add value for future
readers of the changelog.  When I go through changes from three or five
years ago, I need other kinds of information than patch authoring tools
that were en vogue some years ago.

Including anything relevant is the most important one of the tasks when
writing a changelog; another --- only slightly less important --- task
is to exclude anything irrelevant.

Of course what's relevant and irrelevant is in the eye of the beholder;
but the used tools + materials (scripts, static analyzers, favourite
editor, favourite crop of tea) surely are of very very low relevance.

-------------
¹) and if it not quite clear, describe also why this change is desirable
-- 
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/