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: <20090216171233.GB25907@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:12:33 +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:
> > 
> >> 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. [...]

That position of not adding tool information to the commit log is not 
just not tenable but also incredibly silly.

Those tools are useful, they result in fixes, so why should the patch 
author pretend and hide the method of finding problems from the Git 
history? We often write "found via review" or "found via testing". It's 
useful and it gives people an idea of how certain types of fixes were 
found.

	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/