linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] lib/debugobjects.c: move _

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:	Sat, 24 May 2014 20:18:38 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] lib/debugobjects.c: move __initdata after name

Adding Andy and Joe to CC.

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 05:13:38AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2014 14:56:35 -0700
> Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 03:07:19PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> > > Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>
> > 
> > No, don't make this change.  A quick "git grep __initdata" shows that to
> > the extent it has a consistent placement, it's either right after the
> > type ("static some_type __initdata varname") or right after the storage
> > class ("static __initdata some_type varname").  Other similar qualifiers
> > follow the same pattern.
> 
> It was another checkpatch warning asking to put __initdata after variable name...

Gah.  That warning should not exist.  Looks like it got added in
8716de383b82f16d920513138f1691e40ef5a9e3 ("checkpatch: add test for
positional misuse of section specifiers like __initdata").  The error
for placement that GCC doesn't understand seems perfectly fine, but
checkpatch should *not* complain about "static __initdata struct foo
..."; that's perfectly understandable, and the order the majority of the
kernel uses.  Please get rid of that warning, and just keep the error
for the case GCC doesn't understand.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/