| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120228153836.GL8110@shadowen.org> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:38:37 +0000 From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: do not try to sanity test cover letters On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:50:11PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 19:47 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 19:29 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > >> One possibly common workflow is this: > > >> > > >> git format-patch -o mypatches --cover-letter ^start end > > >> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl mypatches/* > > > > > > I use a script for this and don't put the check > > > in checkpatch but put the check in bash. > > > > Sure, and I can do the same. But my question to you is whether > > you think the above is a common workflow, and if the false positives > > that it generates will decrease the number of people likely to make > > using it a part of their routine? > > Dunno. I generally think that tools should report > errors when the input given them is inappropriate. Tend to agree, the more complex we make checkpatch the more often it will be wrong. And it is wrong enough already. -apw -- 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