linux-kernel - Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to simplify do

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: <20090509161506.GA8150@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 9 May 2009 18:15:06 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [FOR REVIEW, PATCH 2/2] introduce "struct wait_opts" to
	simplify do_wait() pathes

(add Andy)

On 05/07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 05/06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > One small nit with the definition above: when using vertical spacing
> > > (which really looks nice) we tend to put the asterix to the type
> > > itself, not to the variable. I.e.:
> > >
> > > 	enum pid_type		wtype;
> > > 	struct pid *		wpid;
> > > 	int			wflags;
> > >
> > > ( This is done to separate the field name from the type - the
> > >   pointer nature of the field is part of the type, not part of the
> > >   name. )
> >
> > Indeed, I like this more too. But checkpatch.pl disagrees!
>
> That's probably a checkpatch bug mistaking * for multiplication -
> ignore checkpatch in that case and please report it to Andy
> Withcroft as well as well.

No, this is not a bug. From scripts/checkpatch.pl

	1667                          # Should not end with a space.
	1668                          $to =~ s/\s+$//;

checkpatch explicitely dislikes "type * name". I think this is
not really right, but I won't insist. Perhaps it is better to
allow tabs before name at least, because this likely means the
code really tries ro look good.


Btw, can't resist,

	while ($to =~ s/\*\s+\*/\*\*/) {
	}

I think this can be simplified to

	$to =~ s/(?<=\*)\s+//g;

Oleg.

--
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/