linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch on Kconfig files

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

Date:	Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:11:11 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: checkpatch on Kconfig files

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 09:42:39AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Andy, hi Joe,
> 
> When running checkpatch on a patch which tweaks many Kconfig entries, I
> got the following output:
> 
> WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully
> #74: FILE: drivers/hid/Kconfig:142:
>  config HID_BELKIN
> 
> WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully
> #82: FILE: drivers/hid/Kconfig:149:
>  config HID_CHERRY
> 
> WARNING: please write a paragraph that describes the config symbol fully
> #135: FILE: drivers/hid/Kconfig:415:
>  config HID_MICROSOFT
> 
> total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 88 lines checked
> 
> I am not adding these entries, just tweaking the dependencies. Thus I
> don't think it makes sense to print these warnings, they aren't
> relevant to the changes I am making. There comment in checkpatch says:
> 
> # check for Kconfig help text having a real description
> # Only applies when adding the entry originally, after that we do not have
> # sufficient context to determine whether it is indeed long enough.
> 
> So I suspect these warnings aren't supposed to be displayed. I recall
> hitting this many times in the past, in fact I think this is the most
> frequent and oldest false positive I get from checkpatch. So I would
> appreciate if this could be fixed, either by really limiting the
> warning to Kconfig entries being added (if you can) or by dropping the
> check altogether (if you can't.)
> 
For my part this is the one and only checkpatch warning which I don't
enfore and happily ignore myself. Might be interesting to get feedback
from others if they think it is useful or just annoying.

Guenter
--
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/