linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] staging: rtl8723bs: wifi_regd.c: put spaces around binary operators

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:   Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:19:08 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@...il.com>
Cc:     Fabian Wolff <fabian.wolff@....de>,
        Máté Horváth <horvatmate@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] staging: rtl8723bs: wifi_regd.c: put spaces around
 binary operators

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:49:10PM +1000, Ian W MORRISON wrote:
> On 14 June 2017 at 00:36, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> > Kernel style is to have spaces around the operators.  This is staging
> > code so we do all the style fixes.  We don't always update older drivers
> > but sometimes we do.  No one is planning to change those drivers though
> > so I guess the answer is no we're not going to update those unless you
> > are?
> >
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. I assume submitting changes for the
> drivers I identified would only be seen as minor corrections to 'the
> chaff' resulting in unnecessary churn. If however it is expected that
> corrections should be made when identified then I'm willing to prepare
> a patch set. I'm happy to take advice either way.

I would just leave the old drivers as-is.

Having spaces around operators has always been kernel style, but it's
only fairly recently that checkpatch.pl started to complain.  We keep
making checkpatch.pl more stict as time goes on.  I think that's good
because some reviewers will make you redo patches for style issues so
having checkpatch.pl complain early on means you don't have redo the
patch.  But it also means that old code will never be checkpatch.pl
clean because we keep adding new checkpatch warnings.

And it's fine that old code has checkpatch warnings.  The point of
checkpatch is to check new patches not to churn through old code.  As a
reviewer, I find that checkpatch saves my time because I can often tell
people to run it instead of listing all the style complaints.

regards,
dan carpenter