linux-kernel - Re: CodingStyle vs checkpatch for block comments

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]

Date:	Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:08:11 -0400
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CodingStyle vs checkpatch for block comments

On 4/3/2012 1:41 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 13:25 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> The relevant code in checkpatch.pl is:
>>
>>                 if ($rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\/\*[ \t]*$/ &&
>>                     $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*$/) {
>>                         CHK("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
>>                             "Don't begin block comments with only a /*
>> line, use /* comment...\n" . $hereprev);
>>                 }
>>
>> So, my questions -
>>
>> 1. I'm not sure what the regexps are really trying to avoid.  Presumably a
>> blank line followed by a block comment is OK?  Certainly the kernel sources
>> are full of this construct.
> It emits a check message on
> <blank line>
> 	/*
>
> but not
> <blank line>
> 	/* some actual comment

Right, I understand what the regexps do, I'm just not clear on what the
rationale is.  Is it trying to ensure that multi-line block comments are
never preceded by a blank line?  Is it trying to change the format of block
comments such that they either are preceded by a blank line, or a
standalone "/*", but not both?  Confusing.

>> 2. The actual warning message emitted seems to directly contradict the
>> CodingStyle document, so presumably we should either clarify the message,
>> or update CodingStyle if we're really trying to change the style.
> Or just remove it or add a test for the patched file
> to be in net/... or drivers/net... or something.

Obviously removing it would be an easy fix. :-)  I don't know if it makes
sense to advocate for different kernel comment styles in different subtrees.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com

--
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/