linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't encourage new code to use "networking" style comments

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: <20170428192721.GA72697@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:27:22 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't encourage new code to use "networking"
 style comments

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:24:18AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 10:55 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Our glorious leader has made his opinion known [1]: the "networking"
> > comment style is not useful for new code.
> 
> <shrug>  and yet nothing was done.
> 
> I think _very_ few people concern themselves one way
> or another.

Right, so why should checkpatch complain? You're adding one more thing
to my mental filter whenever I run checkpatch.

> I believe the only person that actually cares about
> the networking
> comment style is David Miller.

Which is why I've CC'd him. If even *he* doesn't care about having this
warning in checkpatch, then why should anyone else?

> > While the same rules as usual
> > still apply -- e.g., don't unnecessarily churn existing code, and follow
> > existing practice within files -- that doesn't mean that checkpatch
> > should be enforcing that for entire directories. Among other reasons,
> > this can cause automatic patch generators to do the exact wrong thing:
> > convert perfectly good existing code into the "networking style", just
> > because it's in a similar directory.
> 
> I believe the patch generator you are referring to is
> checkpatch.

Actually, it was a poor reference to those (people) whose decisions flow
directly from checkpatch (or other code-checking tools) to their
keyboards. It's best not to encourage them, IMO.

Brian