linux-kernel - Re: [patch v2] checkpatch: complain about GW-BASIC style label names

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: <20150513131613.GI23255@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:	Wed, 13 May 2015 15:16:13 +0200
From:	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] checkpatch: complain about GW-BASIC style label names

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in
> checkpatch.  The warnings look like:
> 
> 	WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descriptive label names
> 	#267: FILE: ./sound/ppc/beep.c:267:
> 	+ fail2:        snd_ctl_remove(chip->card, beep_ctl);
> 
> This generates slightly under 2000 new warnings.  None of them are
> false positives.

Please whitelist fs/btrfs/* from this type of checkpatch warning. Using
the out: or err: is a very common pattern and nobody has complained so
far, besides that I find it descriptive enough in most cases. Where it
needs more description out_something is being used.

My understanding is that developers that work on a particular subsystems
like to see the same code patterns, whitespace style etc.. Local
variations are possible and more or less tolerated.

The checkpatch tool should IMHO catch the global style violations. Once
it starts to interfere with local style variations it's becommig less
useful as it requires extra rounds to tell people "please change it like
that and don't listen to checkpatch". And pointing out minor style or
whitespace issues mismatching the preferences is not what the reviewers
should spend their time on.

This kind of change does not help us, but I guess this is not the first
you hear this.
--
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/