linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] Use new __init_task_data macro in arch init

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:	Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:11:05 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Tim Abbott <tabbott@...lice.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] Use new __init_task_data macro in arch
	init_task.c files.

On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:32:38PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:21:22PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 20:10 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 20:07 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 20:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 19:58 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 22:49 -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
> > > > > > > +union thread_union init_thread_union __init_task_data =
> > > > > > > +       { INIT_THREAD_INFO(init_task) };
> > > > > > All the lines like the above are all producing checkpatch errors.. It
> > > > > > looks like the open brace needs to be up with the equals ..
> > > > > Some checkpatch errors are ignorable.
> > > > > checkpatch output is a guide, not a rule.
> > > > 
> > > > Not errors, those aren't usually ignorable .. Warnings, those could be..
> > > 
> > > Shrug.  So submit a patch...
> > 
> > I would if this was code in the kernel already, but it's not. LKML
> > submission is the process people use to find these types of issues.
> > Issues that should be fixed prior to inclusion, and may have been
> > overlooked..
> > 
> Did you even bother reading the patch? This is exactly the format that is
> in the kernel today (and even predates checkpatch), it's just that
> checkpatch doesn't presently complain about it due to how the section
> parsing is done. If you move the section annotation down to a separate
> line, it also silences checkpatch. In this case, checkpatch is simply
> broken and can be ignored. Stylistic "errors" are complete nonsense.

The

struct data_struct var_name __section_decoration = {
	initializator,
};

is a canonical format for the kernel though so if somebody feels
strongly about being "checkpatch clean" he can post a follow-up
patch ;)

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/