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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7657e484-81ed-840d-cb8b-6b2874d0c9ad@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:38:55 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Minimize checkpatch induced patches...

On 09/14/2016 08:33 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 08:16:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 08:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 19:56 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 :-/
>>>
>>> Linus likely hasn't used checkpatch in a decade or so.
>>>
>>> Taste and judgment can't be scripted anyway.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you find an alternative.
>>
>> You know what. 
>> with some additional writing like 
>> "Existing code outside staging is not supposed to be "fixed" to match checkpatch.
>> Please do not send checkpatch initiated patches for those files"
>> near the newly created warn
> 
> That's not true, I _WANT_ checkpatch cleanups for the portion of the
> kernel I maintain.  It keeps the code correct, up to date, easier to
> maintain, and in doing so, we have found real bugs over time.
> 
> So don't make a blanket statement like that please.  And I'd strongly
> suggest you revisit your feelings about this for code you maintain,
> unless you want it to bitrot and not get any new contributions or
> contributors :)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 

After some days of time going by I have to agree with you. It has never 
been a checkpatch patch that bothered me, instead only some (and rare) fruitless
discussions and ignorance of feedback of very few people made me "unhappy".
Certainly nothing where a "stiff-armed" checkpatch would help.

The other question might be still an interesting topic: The process of how to 
update CodingStyle and how detailed Codingstyle.

Christian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ