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]

Message-ID: <20160915000949.GA12796@cloud>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:09:49 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.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 05:05:09PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 16:54 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 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.
> []
> > > 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.
> 
> checkpatch doesn't do autodetection and there's no real
> need for it to do it either.  The reason is in the name.

I'm not suggesting that checkpatch *needs* to do autodetection,
just pointing out this this proposed change doesn't preclude any future
autodetection.