linux-kernel - Re: [patch] checkpatch: putting the && or || on the wrong line

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: <1294349918.12561.142.camel@Joe-Laptop>
Date:	Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:38:38 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] checkpatch: putting the && or || on the wrong line

On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 22:14 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
> >> >> Sure, standardization is a good thing - to a certain point.
> >> >> We've passed this point long ago.
> > Right.  It's all exactly the same.
> > We agree.  Cites aren't necessary.
> People complained on lkml and other lists that the CodingStyle /
> checkpatch went way too far many times. So the evidence is there, in the
> list archives, and I guess even now you're getting feedback on this.

People complain, that's a fact.

> OTOH you failed to show evidence that super-strict standardization
> benefits anyone.

I don't need to.

If you don't agree with the assertion,
facts likely won't change your mind.
You'll more likely dispute the facts.

Look up this paper if you care to though:

Evaluating the Relation Between Coding
Standard Violations and Faults Within and
Across Software Versions

Cathal Boogerd and Leon Moonen

http://swerl.tudelft.nl/twiki/pub/Main/TechnicalReports/TUD-SERG-2009-008.pdf

RQ2 Are files or modules with a higher violation
density more fault-prone?

This holds for 10 rules in the standard, with some reserva-
tions. There is no reliable prediction for files without ac-
tive development (no changes) nor for files without viola-
tions. Also, the observed relation becomes less pronounced
in time, as the number of registered open faults decreases.


--
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/