linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/72] Blackfin updates for 2.6.32

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: <8bd0f97a0909141517i3535bb84j4cbac0cd986d4914@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:17:25 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/72] Blackfin updates for 2.6.32

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 17:21, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 17:04, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 16:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 16:50, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 16:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> >> Minor highlights:
>> >> >>  - shadow console to help with really early kernel output
>> >> >>  - proper decoding of double fault handling
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Otherwise, we've got the normal bug fixes, IPIPE updates, and clean ups.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Patches 15, 16, 20, 21, and 61 all have checkpatch errors some with
>> >> > several errors..  Could you clean those up those errors before sending
>> >> > this up stream?
>> >>
>> >> i already checked/reviewed the output in the series
>> >
>> > The remaining problems can be fixed .. Why did you leave those errors ?
>>
>> i'm not going to sweat 80 col warnings when the line is 81 cols with
>> tabs of 8 spaces
>
> The line length ones I'm not worried about, those are just warnings..
>
>> as for the other errors, you probably didnt read the code.  you saw
>> "error" and assumed checkpatch was correct.  it isnt always as it isnt
>> a C parser.
>
> Checkpatch is finding real issues with your patches.. You have
> indentations issues in several of the patches. Your removing good
> formatting and replacing it improper formatting. For instance,
>
> ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
> #115: FILE: arch/blackfin/kernel/module.c:102:
> +^I^I           (!strcmp(".bss", shname) &&$
>
> The line your removing had the proper formatting, but this new line has
> improper formatting.. You have several of these issues, you must think
> they aren't important but checkpatch has the WARNING and ERROR
> classification for a reason .. The errors are actual style violation
> that really need to be either cleaned up or explained..
>
> They can be trivially fixed, it's just a matter of adding the proper
> indentation ..

this code i had rewritten and as fallout, the style changed.  looks
fine to me, and no, this particular checpatch "error" is not always
worthwhile (like in this case).
-mike
--
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/