linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/4] ipc,shm: minor cleanups

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: <20140424083515.b113760f062072e69d1899ac@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:35:15 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	gthelen@...gle.com, aswin@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/4] ipc,shm: minor cleanups

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:27:55 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:25:45 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 07:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > > On 04/23/2014 04:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > -  Breakup long function names/args.
> > > > -  Cleaup variable declaration.
> > > > -  s/current->mm/mm
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  ipc/shm.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/ipc/shm.c b/ipc/shm.c
> > > > index f000696..584d02e 100644
> > > > --- a/ipc/shm.c
> > > > +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> > > > @@ -480,15 +480,13 @@ static const struct vm_operations_struct shm_vm_ops = {
> > > >  static int newseg(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_params *params)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	key_t key = params->key;
> > > > -	int shmflg = params->flg;
> > > > +	int id, error, shmflg = params->flg;
> > > 
> > > It's largely a matter of taste (and I may be in a minority), and I know
> > > there's certainly precedent in the kernel code, but I don't much like the 
> > > style of mixing variable declarations that have initializers, with other
> > > unrelated declarations (e.g., variables without initializers). What is 
> > > the gain? One less line of text? That's (IMO) more than offset by the 
> > > small loss of readability.
> > 
> > Yes, it's taste. And yes, your in the minority, at least in many core
> > kernel components and ipc.
> 
> I'm with Michael.
> 
> - Putting multiple definitions on the same line (whether or not they
>   are initialized there) makes it impossible to add little comments
>   documenting them.  And we need more little comments documenting
>   locals.
> 
> - Having multiple definitions on the same line is maddening when the
>   time comes to resolve patch conflicts.  And it increases the
>   likelihood of conflicts in the first place.
> 
> - It makes it much harder to *find* a definition.

And it changes a line that has nothing to do with the patch.

Sometimes the minority are right :-)
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped