linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 0/3] staging: gdm72xx: Code 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <535F0866.2060207@fastmail.fm>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:03:18 +0800
From:	Michalis Pappas <mpappas@...tmail.fm>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] staging: gdm72xx: Code cleanup

Ok, I generated a new patchset based on running checkpatch.pl with the
--strict option, as well as any recommendations made earlier on this thread.

>From the following patches, both 8/10 and 9/10 involve whitespace fixes:
the former fixes issues reported by checkpatch.pl while the latter is
mostly indentation stuff found by inspecting the code, stray tabs etc. I
am sending them as separate patches in case one wants to keep only one
of them.

After applying the patches, the following issues are still reported by
checkpatch.pl. My comments follow:

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)}

We agreed on that one already.

WARNING:LONG_LINE: line over 80 characters

This comes out in cases where I slightly bent the 80 chars rule to
improve readability. Should anyone complain that it doesn't fit their
terminal I promise I'll revert it back ;)

WARNING: unchecked sscanf return value
#295: FILE: gdm_wimax.c:295:
+		sscanf(e->dev->name, "wm%d", &idx);

>From my understanding this should be ok. The value stored in e->dev>name
is generated by __dev_alloc_name which does all the necessary checks for
user supplied input etc, so it should be considered as a trusted value.

WARNING:SPACING: Missing a blank line after declarations

This is a false positive, as it refers to pointer-to-function
declarations withing structures.

CHECK:BRACES: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'

I found it to be more readable the way it was, so I didn't touch it.

CHECK:UNCOMMENTED_DEFINITION: spinlock_t definition without comment

I am not sure what the locks are used for so I am unable to write a
comment on these.

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/