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  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]
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:27:06 +0530
From:	Srikrishan Malik <srikrishanmalik@...il.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, greg@...ah.com,
	andreas.dilger@...el.com, oleg.drokin@...el.com,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] staging: lustre: Fix misplaced opening brace
 warnings

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 19:01 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:01:36PM +0530, Srikrishan Malik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:18:13PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > That looks silly before and after.  Everything is indented in a funny
> > > > way.
> > > 
> > > Is this better:
> > > 
> > > 	static const ldlm_policy_data_t lookup_policy = {
> > > 				.l_inodebits = { MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP }
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > 
> > That is indented too far.
> > 
> > Honestly, I think it looks best on one line but in terms of real life we
> > can't ignore checkpatch warnings because eventually someone else will
> > try to "fix" it to not be on one line.
> > 
> > This function has the silly thing where the types are in one column and
> > the variables are in another.  But then over time inevitably we add more
> > variables and nothing is lined up any more.
> > 
> > I think it's best to move this const variable block to the very front of
> > the list.
> > 
> > req doesn't need to be initialized.
> > 
> > rc is normally the last variable declared.
> > 
> > lvb_type should be initialized to LVB_T_NONE instead of zero.
> > 
> > __u64 should be u64.
> > 
> > All those changes could be done as one patch titled, "cleanup variable
> > declarations in mdc_enqueue()".  There may be other cleanups you could
> > do as well.  Look hard.
> 
> I think it looks odd to mix named and unnamed
> initializers for the typedef and its members.
> 
> ldlm_policy_data_t is a union and it could be
> explicit instead of a typedef.
> 
> Perhaps:
> 	static const union ldlm_policy_data lookup_policy = {
> 		.l_inodebits = {
> 			.bits = MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP,
> 		},
> 	};
> 
> or maybe use another DECLARE_<foo> macro indirection.
>

This patch set is aimed at removing checkpatch issues from files in
lustre/lustre/mdc.

Is it ok if I just fix those in this set and post another patch set
to take care of other issues identified in review?

- removing typedef for ldlm_policy_data_t will touch many other
files/dirs which were not initially targeted for this patch set.
- There can be a separate patch to remove __u64.

--
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