linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support

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: <1330517388.3545.109.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:09:48 +0200
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support

On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 12:40 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Notice, your patch-set has huge amount of checkpatch.pl complaints -
> > please fix them. This will also be consistent with the overall UBI
> > coding style where I honored checkpatch.pl limitations like identation
> > style and 80 chars per line.
> > 
> 
> All checkpatch.pl complaints will be fixed.
> But first we have to discuss and address real problems.

Note, I just have a maintainers script which takes the patch-set as
input, then checks bisectability, finds new warnings, checks with
sparse/smatch/coccinelle/checkpatch.pl etc. I just gave your patches to
my script and checkpatch.pl complaints were the only things identified
by the scripts.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

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