linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging: bcm: fix checkpatch.pl errors and warnings in Version.h

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:09:52 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Pradheep Shrinivasan <pradheep.sh@...il.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, joe@...ches.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging: bcm: fix checkpatch.pl errors and warnings
 in Version.h

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:13:40AM +0530, Pradheep Shrinivasan wrote:
> Hi Dan
> 
>  I remember the bug .. but i think in this case it would be ok as it does
> not look that weird as in the case of the single character brackets.
> 
> In case you feel it is totally un necessary i can fix it and send the patch
> again.

So are you asking me, are the parenthesis totally unnecessary?  Yes.
Absolutely.  How could that macro possibly be expanded in a way that
would cause a bug.

Are you asking me if I think the code is better without unneeded
parenthesis?  Yes again.

Are you asking me if I'm going to NAK your patch?  No.  It's an
unfortunate thing.  Checkpatch.pl is going around telling people to
add bogus parenthesis everywhere, and no one likes to redo their
patches.  And I feel like a jerk for telling people that they should
redo their patches.  And checkpatch.pl is a robot which has more
energy than I do.

regards,
dan carpenter

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)