linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Categorize some long line length checks

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]

Message-ID: <1432402012.29657.52.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Sat, 23 May 2015 10:26:52 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, oleg.drokin@...el.com,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org, lustre-deve@...ts.lustre.org,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Mike Shuey <shuey@...due.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Categorize some long line length checks

On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 13:32 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Many lines of code extend beyond the maximum line length.
> > Some of these are possibly justified by use type.
> >
> > For instance:
> >
> > structure definitions where comments are added per member like
> >
> > struct foo {
> > 	type member;		/* some long description */
> 
> I'm not super fond of the comment one.  Perhaps people could express
> themselves more concisely, or put the details elsewhere?

Concision is good, straining for brevity or bad
formatting isn't.

I've seen a lot of ugly patches lately to "fix"
code like this by making it worse.

By default, there is still a long_line warning for
this style.  It arguably could be appropriate to
keep some lines like this and this makes it easy
to tell people "add --ignore=<type>".

This patch shouldn't be applied right now anyway.

I think the idea is OK, but this implementation
could be improved and clarified by moving the
current exclusions before the classifications.

Anyone else have an opinion?

I'll send a V2 later unless there are more comments.

--
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/