linux-kernel - Re: 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: <1472497256.3425.81.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:00:56 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
        Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: checkkpatch (in)sanity ?

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 21:01 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:

> there's now quite a
> difference with checkpatch parameters what other people use and what I
> use.
[]
> I find checkpatch very useful to maintain certain coding style in ath10k
> and I don't need to worry small details like whitespace. I just need to
> disable some of the warnings so that they don't hide the real warnings
> I'm interested about.

I don't see a conflict here.

The entire point of classifying all of those checkpatch
message types was to allow exactly what you are doing.