linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl in osl.c

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54F79B9C.1030901@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:56:12 -0700
From:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, al.stone@...aro.org
CC:	lenb@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
	robert.moore@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] ACPI: fix all errors reported by cleanpatch.pl
 in osl.c

On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@...aro.org wrote:
>> From: Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>
>>
>> In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from
>> osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl.  They fell into these
>> classes:
>>
>>    -- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice
>>    -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same)
>>    -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>
> 
> checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here.  You're trying to make the coding style be
> more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel.
> 
> The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so
> it should not be used to justify changes in that code.
> 
> Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9].
> 
> 

Okay, I'm puzzled.  In the last version of these patches, I asked if I
should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file.  I
understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0]
from checkpatch's point of view.  I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9])
and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did.  What did I
misunderstand from that reply?

If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next
version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the
kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed.  I only did
the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term
maintenance type work.


[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/4/749

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@...hat.com
-----------------------------------
--
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/