linux-kernel - Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode

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: <m3vdhmvcw5.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:37:46 +0100
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	"Martin Schleier" <drahemmaps@....net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matteo Croce <technoboy85@...il.com>
Subject: Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode

"Martin Schleier" <drahemmaps@....net> writes:

>> Did the patch in question contain such problems?
> the last point:
>  - etc... =>

Yeah.

> "WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files

Ironically, it's the only "WARNING" while the rest are "ERRORS".
OTOH I personally believe all output from checkpatch should be labeled
"WARNING"; it's not for checkpatch to decide. It's only a tool.

> #56: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/nopl_emu.c:13:
> +void do_invalid_op(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code);" ?
> (or do you think that this is a formatting issue?!)

Actually, I think it wasn't any issue at all at this point, when it
wasn't yet established if the patch makes sense at all.

> It is the job of a Submitter
> (as described in Documentations/SubmittingPatches section 4)
> to check and test his patches with tools like checkpatch or sparse
> before posting them.

You apparently forgot what SubmittingPatches file is all about:

"This text is a collection of suggestions which can greatly increase the
chances of your change being accepted."

You know, we don't have laws for everything here. And we're not
androids specialized in producing C code. We are supposed to use some
common sense first.

> After all this patch is going into /arch/x86 and not /drivers/staging
> and this sort of "extern declaration" is prone to break one day when
> void do_invalid_op(struct pt_regs *, long); declaration is modified.

That's true, though it's the same for "staging".
-- 
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/