linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] Use checkpatch.pl to make thinkpad

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: <CAHp75Vd6Ryo4mqO7h6E10fnzp_tF+mtx70RqsSuVnUVhhzZOyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:02:52 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Simranjit Singh <simranjit.singh@...ebaby.org>
Cc:     Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <ibm-acpi@....eng.br>,
        "dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Use checkpatch.pl to make thinkpad_acpi.c error free:
 octal permissions

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Simranjit Singh
<simranjit.singh@...ebaby.org> wrote:
> From: Simranjit Singh <simranjit.singh@...ebaby.org>
>
> Using the checkpatch.pl script, there were 8 errors in thinkpad_acpi.c. I fixed them by changing permissions to octal,
> and by adding parenthesis.
> On the current tree, if you use checkpatch.pl, thinkpad_acpi.c will have 8 errors. With my changes, there are 0 errors.
> However, I have added 3 new warnings.
> I'm very new to kernel development, so if I messed up somewhere, please do tell me.
>
> Changed binary permissions to octal in accordance with checkpatch.pl in thinkpad_acpi.c

Besides comments you got already, keep in mind that patch numbering
starts from 1, 0 is a special dedicated value for cover letter which
you apparently miss.
Of course, in case of this "series" you are not supposed to make it as a series.

And one more time, it's a contributor's responsibility to test (*)
changes before sending _by default _.

*) sometimes compilation test is enough, though most of the times the
real run would be required.

As per change 0 to 0444 for the cases you did, you obviously didn't
read the code and thus may not understand the ABI of this module.

So, obvious NAK for this patch.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko