linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware/dmi

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

Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:36:44 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware/dmi_scan: Drop OOM messages

On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 18:17 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le Wednesday 10 July 2013 à 07:51 -0700, Joe Perches a écrit :
> > even more trivial...
[]
> > It'd also be nice to use the same test style
> > in all 6 uses.
> > 
> > 	if (!foo)
> 
> Both styles are used throughout the file, and checkpatch doesn't
> complain.

And it might be wrong for checkpatch to complain as
there are tens of thousands of those in the kernel.

I think using both styles in the same file is poor
form though.

> Unifying the coding style is beyond the scope of my patchset,
> sorry. Feel free to send a patch on top of mine if you really care.

No worries.  If I remember, I'll send a patch after
yours hit -next.


--
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/