linux-kernel - Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090416132752.0865f718@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:27:52 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, devzero@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Should MODULE_DESCRIPTION be mandatory ?

> I see 424 modules without MODULE_DESCRIPTION (in the list above) and
> 3127 .c files that contain "MODULE_DESCRIPTION".
> 
> To me it's a Nice to have but not Required.  (i.e., not worth it IMO)

I think it is worth doing but we certainly don't want it warning by
default yet - warning people who choose to work on this is useful
until but until there are only a few offenders left spewing a zillion
warnings won't help
--
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/