linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition argument without identifier name issue

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]

Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:37:23 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mikhail Golubev <golubev.mikhail@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, forest@...ttletooquiet.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition
 argument without identifier name issue

On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 16:57 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:23:45PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:06:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote:
> > > > Function definitions arguments should also have an identifier name as reported by checkpatch.pl.
[]
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
[]
> > > > @@ -86,15 +86,15 @@ struct vnt_phy_field {
> > > >  unsigned int vnt_get_frame_time(u8 preamble_type, u8 pkt_type,
> > > >  				unsigned int frame_length, u16 tx_rate);p
> > > >  
> > > > -void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *, u32 frame_length,
> > > > -		       u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *);
> > > > -
> > > > -void vnt_set_short_slot_time(struct vnt_private *);
> > > > -void vnt_set_vga_gain_offset(struct vnt_private *, u8);
> > > > -void vnt_set_antenna_mode(struct vnt_private *, u8);
> > > > -int vnt_vt3184_init(struct vnt_private *);
> > > > -void vnt_set_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *);
> > > > -void vnt_exit_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *);
> > > > -void vnt_update_pre_ed_threshold(struct vnt_private *, int scanning);
> > > > +void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *priv, u32 frame_length,
> > > > +		       u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *phy);
> > > > +
> > > Really?  Since when is this a coding style requirement?
> > This requirement is really new. It was proposed by Joe Perches at 26 Sep 2016:
> > [PATCH] checkpatch: Add warning for unnamed function definition.
> > 
> > Should this type of warnings be fixed here?
> Ugh, Joe, why did you add this option?

1. Most all kernel prototypes use named arguments.
2. It helps make header files easier to read/lookup with grep.

int func(int, int, int)
vs
int func(int weight, int density, int mass)

which is easier for humans to use?