linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ?

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: <20160829071515.wqlpjccq7a3vk7u6@piout.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:15:15 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:     "Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ?

On 28/08/2016 at 18:37:59 -0400, Levin, Alexander via Ksummit-discuss wrote :
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 01:15:57PM -0400, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 22:47 -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote:
> > 
> > > Would you agree that by default we shouldn't show anything that's
> > > not an error/defect?
> > 
> > Not particularly, no.
> 
> I think that we need to figure out this disagreement first then. My claim is that checkpatch's output isn't useful.
> 
> Based on your bash snippet, populated with the KS program committee + the first few maintainers I spotted on 'git log':
> 
> commiter	commits		issues
> arnd		858		2155
> axboe		53		22
> corbet		15		9
> davem		55		81
> grant.likely	2		0
> gregkh		38 	 	46
> hch 	 	393 	 	581
> James.Bottomley	15 	 	15
> martin.petersen	18 	 	20
> mchehab 	678 		1042
> mgorman 	104 		256
> mingo 	 	58 		192
> paulmck 	176 		68
> peterz 	 	226 		511
> rostedt 	123 		178
> shuahkh 	53 		6
> tglx 	 	200 		287
> torvalds 	64 		89
> tytso 		37 		77
> viro 	 	350	 	256
> 
> And for the last 10,000 commits in the log, that script has observed 10,783 issues.
> 
> It'll be interesting to hear from these people about their view of checkpatch, but IMO when on average there are more issues than commits I can suggest two possible causes:
> 
>  1. People are used to ignore checkpatch warnings.
>  2. People aren't using checkpatch.
> 

Well, Arnd is used to move around old code when refactoring. As the code
just moves, he rarely solves checkpatch issues when doing so which is
the right thing to do.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com