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: <1488401182.20731.11.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:46:22 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Avraham Shukron <avraham.shukron@...il.com>,
        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

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 21:59 +0200, Avraham Shukron wrote:
> > 
> > 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?

Some say is makes following logical changes more difficult.
git blame, etc...  I'm not a big adherent of that though.

> 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?

The space after comma rule _should_ be broken when
alignment is more obvious.  The existing code is just fine.

Conventions are just that.  It's OK to be unconventional.

It's better to know when to follow and when not to follow
those conventions.

checkpatch messages should be considered guides and not
dicta that must be followed to the last letter.

To me, the rest of the patch was OK though.

If you want to learn the kernel patch process, modifying files
in drivers/staging is a good place to start.

Otherwise, it's probably best to find/fix some actual defect
and suggest actual logical changes that reduce code size,
improve performance, expand test coverage, better document
the code, etc..

cheers, Joe