linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve CamelCase test for Page

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1361574388.6168.6.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:06:28 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve CamelCase test for Page

dOn Fri, 2013-02-22 at 15:57 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> What are the guidelines on camelcase warnings on patches. A recent one
> I ran into is on a variable in a structure and fixing it would require
> changing the original variable.

The same as all other checkpatch warnings.
Ignore the ones you don't agree with.

Errors maybe should be fixed.  You should be able
to ignore those too though.

> One would have to change a large portion of the code to fix it. In
> such cases, do we ignore this warning?

Yes.

Taste is always author's choice.

Of course, lots of things depends on the upstream
path and files you chose to work on.

If you're working in drivers/net, most of these
warnings seem more likely to get patches that have
them rejected.

If you're working on drivers/scsi, it seems you
don't have to bother running checkpatch at all.

--
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/