linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch induced patches...

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]

Message-ID: <87mw4jjd0m.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:44:09 +0200
From:	Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	<gmate.amit@...il.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bas Peters <baspeters93@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pushpendra Singh <pushpendra.singh@...rtplayin.com>,
	<manuel.schoelling@....de>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: checkpatch induced patches...

Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 21:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:00:29AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >> I'm half tempted to submit some patch like this to
>> >> make it difficult to use checkpatch on files outside
>> >> of drivers/staging.
>> >>
>> >> o Only allow checkpatch to be used with the -f/--file
>> >>   option for drivers/staging/
>> >> o Add an undocumented --force command line option
>> >
>> > Sure.  We could try that.  I once sent a patch to make -f generate a
>> > warning about not wasting people's time, but this is also ok.
>> >
>> >> o Make --strict the default for drivers/staging
>> >
>> > Ack.
>> 
>> FYI: We had already a heated debate on that topic.
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/415
>
> Yeah, I remember.
>
> It's always a pleasure to chat with Borislav.
>
> This is basically a patch that implements my suggestion
> in that thread.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/427
>
> I wonder if the undocumented --force option is acceptable
> to Pavel and Kalle.

I don't mind if I have to add --force to my scripts as long as
checkpatch works similarly as before.

-- 
Kalle Valo
--
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/