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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:32:03 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next (was Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adjust the position of a jump label in rbd_header_from_disk()) On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 07:53 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:11 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > IMO what we need is to go through all rules in CodingStyle and if for > > > some rule there is no overwhelming majority in the core kernel, well, > > > the list has grown way too large and could use massive trimming. > > > > I'm in complete agreement. > > > > I also think that checkpatch's ERROR/WARNING/CHECK message naming is > > far too severe and injunctive and could use a renaming to something > > more silly, bug related and less commanding like FLEAS/GNATS/NITS. > I think it is better to be clear. CHECK was never really clear to me, > especially if you see it in isolation, on a file that doesn't also have > ERROR or WARNING. NITS is a common word in this context, but not FLEAS > and GNATS, as far as I know. > There could also be a severity level: high medium and low I agree clarity is good. The seriousness with which some beginners take these message types though is troublesome, Maybe prefix various different types of style messages. Something like: ERROR -> CODE_STYLE_DEFECT WARNING -> CODE_STYLE_UNPREFERRED CHECK -> CODE_STYLE_NIT I doubt additional external documentation would help much. Some checkpatch bleats really are errors though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists