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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160922144648.10efc7ac@endymion>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:46:48 +0200
From:   Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 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

Hi Jani,

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:43:42 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
> > You need to think in terms of actual use cases. Who uses checkpatch and
> > why? I think there are 3 groups of users:
> > * Beginners. They won't run the script by themselves, instead they will
> >   submit a patch which infringes a lot of coding style rules, and the
> >   maintainer will point them to checkpatch and ask for a resubmission
> >   which makes checkpatch happy. Being beginners, they can only rely on
> >   the script itself to only report things which need to be fixed, by
> >   default.
> > * Experienced developers. Who simply want to make sure they did not
> >   overlook anything before they post their work for review. They have
> >   the knowledge to decide if they want to ignore some of the warnings.
> > * People with too much spare time, looking for anything they could
> >   "contribute" to the kernel. They will use --subjective and piss off
> >   every maintainer they can find.
> >
> > Sadly there's not much we can do about the third category, short of
> > killing option --subjective altogether.
> 
> You could make checkpatch have different defaults for patches and files,
> to encourage better style in new code, but to discourage finding
> problems in existing code.

Fixing old code isn't wrong per se. It's good actually. But only if
done the right way by the right person. I don't think it makes any
sense to use this task as an introduction to kernel development for
newcomers. It doesn't teach them anything about the kernel, really.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support