linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] staging: gdm72xx: Minor cleanup

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]

Message-ID: <53577E96.10106@fastmail.fm>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:49:26 +0800
From:	Michalis Pappas <mpappas@...tmail.fm>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] staging: gdm72xx: Minor cleanup

On 04/23/2014 04:04 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:39:06AM +0800, Michalis Pappas wrote:
>> After all patches have been applied, the only remaining issue on the
>> TODO list is to conform to the coding standards.  The remaining issues
>> reported by checkpatch.pl are probably pedantic, so if agreed, that
>> task can be removed from the list too.
> 
> So I did a:
> for i in $(find drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ -name \*.c) ; do ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -f $i 2>&1 ; done | tee err-list
> 

Hi Dan, thanks for looking at this. From the above snippet I realize that I wasn't aware of the strict flag, so significantly less errors were produced.

The issues I was referring to as pedantic are:

WARNING: unchecked sscanf return value
#296: FILE: gdm_wimax.c:296:
+               sscanf(e->dev->name, "wm%d", &idx);

does this really need to be checked?

ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis
#34: FILE: usb_ids.h:34:
+#define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid)	\
+	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},	\
+	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)}

these macros are only used for brevity in a subsequent array declaration, so it seems that the parenthesis are not really needed.

Moreover, due to recent commits on checkpatch.pl, a few more issues are now reported, even when not using the strict flag. In any case, I can re-run using strict and submit an additional set of patches for the remaining issues.

Regards,

Michalis

--
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/