linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hid: usbhid: usbkbd: fix checkpatch.pl issues

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: <3c67c4db-9b59-82f1-9406-3dfdb2ac0a48@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:59:31 +0200
From:   Avraham Shukron <avraham.shukron@...il.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     jikos@...nel.org, benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hid: usbhid: usbkbd: fix checkpatch.pl issues

> 
> This kind of change is definitely not helpful. The original table was
> Nx16, you converted it to Nx14. Why do you think original table used 16
> columns?
> 
> Regardless, it's a very old driver, just let it be.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

I can make it Nx8 :)

Seriously now - I don't understand what is so wrong with checkpatch fixes?
I'm a new to kernel development, and the natural place to start is to do some
coding style fixes.
I thought fixing a driver that I actually use daily will be more satisfying.
Why driver being old is a good reason to ignore the coding style conventions?