linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: net and drivers/net: Warn on missing blank line after variable declaration

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:	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:55:17 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kys@...rosoft.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devel@...uxdriverproject.org, apw@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: net and drivers/net: Warn on missing blank
 line after variable declaration

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:42:30 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:28:40 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > Networking prefers this style, so warn when it's not used.
> > > void foo(int bar)
> > > {
> > > 	int baz;
> > > 
> > > 	code...
> > > }
> > > 
> > > not
> > > 
> > > void foo(int bar)
> > > {
> > > 	int baz;
> > > 	code...
> > > }
> > > 
> > > There are a limited number of false positives when using
> > > macros to declare variables like:
> > > 
> > > WARNING: networking uses a blank line after declarations
> > > #330: FILE: net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c:330:
> > > +	int dif = sk->sk_bound_dev_if;
> > > +	INET_ADDR_COOKIE(acookie, saddr, daddr)
> > 
> > um wait wut wot.
> > 
> > *All* kernel code uses blank line between end-of-locals and
> > start-of-code.  Or if it doesn't it should, thwap.
> > Why are we special-casing net/?
> 
> It's easy enough to remove the path test, but it's
> not in CodingStyle and David seems to be the one
> that makes the effort to correct people about it.
> 
> I don't care one way or another.
> 
> I'm just trying to get fewer rejections for people
> that use checkpatch.

mutter.

OK, let's do this for now.  Could you please cook up a followon patch
which makes this kernel-wide?  I'll play with that for a while then I'll
decide how much I feel like irritating people.
--
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/