| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:00:29 -0800 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nok.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] include/checkpatch: Prefer __scanf to __attribute__((format(scanf, ...) On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 21:47 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 04:01:12PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > It's equivalent to __printf, so prefer __scanf. > So ... looking at this patch it just seems to macro-fy the > __printf and __scanf attributes. It's just for __scanf. The __printf change is just a neatening/spacing change. > Is this required to make > cleanpatch.pl work easier? No. It's a trivial symmetry patch added to make fewer uses of __attribute__((format(...) similar to the __printf commit from awhile ago. commit b9075fa968a0a4347aef35e235e2995c0e57dddd > And there is also some checkpatch.pl features. Should that part > be in a seperate patch? I think it's OK to do the whole thing at once. -- 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