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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1405221019.9132.34.camel@joe-AO725> Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:10:19 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl misses list_for_each_entry() coding style issues On Sat, 2014-07-12 at 16:08 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > static int foo_init(void) > { > > list_for_each_entry(foo, &foo, list) > { > do_something_foo(foo); > } > > return 0; > } > > Will not be caught by checkpatch: > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --file foo.c > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 lines checked > > foo.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. > > > Any way to fix that up? Probably. Right now it only works on for/do tests. It should probably also work on all functions. I'll play with it. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists