linux-kernel - Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DB50854.8090700@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:36:20 +1000
From:	Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@...il.com>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	U-Boot Users <u-boot@...ts.denx.de>
Subject: Expanding checkpatch for non-linux (specifically U-Boot) use

Hi all,

There has been a bit of discussion lately on the U-Boot mailing list
regarding the use of checkpatch for U-Boot patches (see
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/090954.html)

U-Boot uses the Linux coding style and checkpatch is therefore a very good
tool for us to use to check style compliance. However, checkpatch has a few
Linux specific checks which throw up false warnings for U-Boot patches like:

WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strto*
WARNING: Use #include <linux/$file> instead of <asm/$file>

Also, checkpatch seems to be checking not only patched lines, but context
lines as well. There is a policy for U-Boot patches to not intermix
whitespace / code cleanup changes and functional changes in in the same
patch. So to achieve zero warnings and errors, the submitter is forced to
create an additional code-cleanup patch in addition to the functionality
patch. The code cleanup can end up being significantly larger than the
functionality change which discourages casual submitters.

So I have a pretty simple question to ask of LKML - Will checkpatch patches
to create a 'U-Boot' command-line option to explicitly filter out Linux
specific warnings and errors ever be accepted into checkpatch, or will we
be required to create and maintain a U-Boot specific version?

P.S. If you could please keep the U-Boot mailing list Cc'd, that would be
appreciated

Regards,

Graeme

--
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/