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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:06:14 -0700
From:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:	al.stone@...aro.org, 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 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 04:56:12 PM Al Stone wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The changes are basically OK, but the justification is bogus to me.
> "I'm making the chagne, because checkpatch.pl told me so" is a pretty bad
> explanation in my view.  It is much better to say "This file does not
> adhere to the general kernel coding style and since I'm going to split it
> into pieces and I want those pieces to follow the coding style more closely,
> make changes as follows."
> 
> So this is more about the changelogs (and subjects) than the code changes
> themselves.

Aha.  That makes much more sense to me.  Sorry if I was being a bit dense;
I'll rev these for the next version so it's far clearer.  Thanks for being
patient :).

-- 
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/