linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Minimize checkpatch induced patches...

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, 14 Sep 2016 16:54:05 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Minimize checkpatch induced patches...

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:56:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 07:51 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > checkpatch can be a useful tool for patches.
> > 
> > It can be a much more controversial tool when used on files with the
> > -f option for style and whitespace changes for code that is relatively
> > stable, obsolete, or for maintained by specific individuals.
> > 
> > o By default, allow checkpatch to be used with the -f|--file option
> >   for files in drivers/staging/
> > o Add an undocumented --force command line option to be used together
> >   with the -f|--file option to scan any file
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
> > cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> > cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> > cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> 
> This will certainly help to reduce the noise. On the other hand I remember Linus
> saying something along the line that he does not like the -f parameter (and he
> prefers to set this automatically). So while I like the approach I am not happy
> enough to ack right now - still looking for a better alternative :-/

This seems entirely compatible with autodetection.  If checkpatch
detects that it runs on a file rather than a patch, it can assume -f.
It can then apply this same logic to reject that if 1) in a kernel tree
and 2) running on a non-staging file and 3) not passed --force.