| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <m3skdvtgas.fsf@intrepid.localdomain> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:44:11 +0200 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] checkpatch: add a blacklist Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> writes: >>>From my perspective Documentation/SubmittingPatches really dictates what > you should be doing with checkpatch, since that was signed off on by > Andy (on this thread) and Linus .. In that document I think checkpatch > is given authority, rather than what your suggesting where it's just > something you can use or not, and ignore or not like it has no meaning > at all.. Checkpatch is a tool. How a tool can have authority? Code authors can have authority. Maintainers can have authority. Linus as the "top" maintainer can have authority. But a tool? If checkpatch had any authority, the file in question (ext4.h) would have to be "fixed" without questions and exceptions. I don't say its warnings and errors have no meaning at all. It may be very helpful at times, but still it's only a tool. -- Krzysztof Halasa -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists