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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aeea6c53-e865-38b2-5ed6-f2f057ac30a5@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:55:29 +0200
From:   Avraham Shukron <avraham.shukron@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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 01/03/17 22:46, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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
> 

Thanks you very much for the the answer.
That explains the matter.