linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Only emit LONG

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: <1403756211.7977.22.camel@joe-AO725>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:16:51 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Only emit LONG_LINE for --strict

On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 20:44 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:33:03PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 19:24 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:05:07PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:46 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > Regardless of the long-standing debate over line width, checkpatch
> > > > > should not warn about it by default.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not getting involved here.
> > > > I don't care much one way or another.
> > []
> > > I'm not asking you to get involved in the Great Line Length Debate;
> > > that's why I didn't attempt to patch CodingStyle or similar.  However, I
> > > think it makes sense for *checkpatch* to stop emitting this warning.
> > 
> > I think checkpatch should encourage people to write code in
> > a style that matches CodingStyle as well as the predominant
> > styles used in the rest of the kernel.
> 
> Not arguing with that, but in this particular case the warning seems
> counterproductive to that goal, especially compared to the
> DEEP_INDENTATION warning.  More subjective or "to taste" issues tend
> to have lower severity in checkpatch.  And CodingStyle *already* says
> "unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases
> readability"

Just some suggestions off the top of my head.

If the goal is to reduce long line lengths, then maybe
more warnings or --strict tests for things like:

long variable names: (pick a length)

	some_long_variable_name_with_a_color

consecutive dereferences where a temporary might be better:

	foo->bar[baz].member1 = 1;
	foo->bar[baz].member2 = 2;

Multiple logical tests on a single line:

	foo > bar && baz < quz && etc...

Arguments after column 80
                                                                                                   1
         1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8         9         0
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
	result = some_long_function(some_arg(arg1, arg2), another_arg(arg3, arg4), 4);

where a single argument of a short length before a
statement terminating ; may be ignored, but a longer
argument list may not.

Long trigraphs:

	should be on multiple lines

Comments beyond 80 column

	No idea what's right.

etc...


--
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/