linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] trivial: PM / Hibernate: clean up checkpatch in hibernate.c

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

Message-ID: <4317708.1544moHa91@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:59:59 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	patches@...aro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] trivial: PM / Hibernate: clean up checkpatch in hibernate.c

On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 02:37:33 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29)
> > Well, this isn't a trivial patch.
> 
> I'll remove the trivial, thanks!
> 
> Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29)
> > On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:43:50 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > > +     while (1)
> > > +             ;
> > Please remove this change from the patch.  I don't care about checkpatch
> > complaining here.
> > > +     while (1)
> > > +             ;
> > Same here.
> 
> Will do, thanks!
> 
> > > @@ -765,7 +762,7 @@ static int software_resume(void)
> > >       if (isdigit(resume_file[0]) && resume_wait) {
> > >               int partno;
> > >               while (!get_gendisk(swsusp_resume_device, &partno))
> > > -                     msleep(10);
> > > +                     msleep(20);
> > 
> > That's the reason why it is not trivial.
> > 
> > First, the change being made doesn't belong in this patch.
> 
> Thanks I'll separate it if it remains.
> 
> > Second, what's the problem with the original value?
> 
> The warning from checkpatch implies that it's misleading to
> msleep < 20ms since msleep is using msec_to_jiffies + 1 for
> the duration.  In any case, this is polling for devices discovery to
> complete.  It is used when resumewait is specified on the command
> line telling hibernate to wait for the resume device to appear.

What checkpatch is saying is about *new* code, not the existing one.

You need to have a *reason* to change the way the existing code works
and the above explanation doesn't sound like a good one to me in this
particular case.

> > > -static ssize_t image_size_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> > > +static ssize_t image_size_show(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > +                            struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> > Why can't you leave the code as is here?
> > > -static ssize_t image_size_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> > > +static ssize_t image_size_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > +                             struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> > And here?
> 
> Purely long line cleanup. (>80 colunms)

Please don't do any >80 columns cleanups in any patches you want me to apply.
Seriously.  This is irritating and unuseful.

And if you don't want checkpatch to complain about that, please send a patch
to modify checkpatch accordingly.

Thanks!

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/