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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:48:50 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com, devel@...uxdriverproject.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: Treewide frequency of various checkpatch messages On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:02:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 01:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:54 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > (a question about a new message warning of a missing > > blank line between variable declaration blocks and > > code in a function) > > > > How many warnings does this generate does this generate when you run it > > > > across the whole tree? > > > A lot. > > > > Turns out it's 20,210 and it's the 14th > > most common checkpatch message type. > > > > 14 20210 WARNING:SPACING: Missing a blank line after declarations > > I think it's still worthwhile to clean up. Maybe. Luckily, <smile> I don't have to deal with the patches that would be generated by this message. Some people are going to view patches for this as useless noise. Couple of things: It's kind of interesting how the messages vary by subsystem. Let me know if you want any breakdowns. And there are a small number of false positives for this "Missing a blank line" test with declarations like: typedef *foo; DECLARE_BITMAP(foo); __DECL_REG(foo); LIST_HEAD(foo); So there could be a minor improvement to the test. I looked at some of the results using: This sort of match stands out a bit: ---> arch/tile/lib/spinlock_32.c:68: { u32 iterations = 0; while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock)) delay_backoff(iterations++); } Instances like this may be fine, but adding blank lines to very short functions with a single declaration just adds to the overall line count. I've no strong opinion of the need to write code like: { u32 iterations = 0; while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock)) delay_backoff(iterations++); } -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists