linux-kernel - Re: "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" in docs-next

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:47:25 +0200
From:   Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:49:47 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:57 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Sure. But I'm afraid you keep changing topics and I have no idea where
> > you are going. We started with "should there be a space before jump
> > labels", then out of nowhere we were discussing the wording of the
> > output of checkpatch (how is that related?) and now you pull statistics
> > out of your hat, like these numbers imply anything.
> 
> No, not out of a hat.  Those are the results of a silly script that
> runs checkpatch on every .[ch] kernel file (but not tools/) with:
> 
> 	--show-types --terse --emacs --strict --no-summary --quiet -f

Silly is the key word here. Just don't do it.

> The magnitude of "ERRORS" is high and it's not necessary or useful
> to modify old or obsolete code just to reduce that magnitude.

I agree. Just don't do it.

> > checkpatch was called checkPATCH for a reason.
> 
> That's why I promote the --force option to limit using checkpatch on
> files outside of staging.
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9332205/
> 
> Andrew?  Are you going to apply that one day?

I hope not. Looks plain wrong to me. This wont prevents idiots from
being idiots. All it does is make things more difficult for the rest of
us.

> > ERROR means that the new code isn't allowed to do that. Period.
> 
> Disagree.  The compiler doesn't care.

Which is good, because this has nothing to do with the compiler.

> The value of consistency in reducing defects is very hard to quantify.

That's not the only purpose of consistency.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support