linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] kbuild: Add P= command line flag to run checkpatch

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: <1511294584.6989.34.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:03:04 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jim Davis <jim.epost@...il.com>, Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Cc:     Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] kbuild: Add P= command line flag to run checkpatch

On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 12:48 -0700, Jim Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Would you like to keep the checkpatch changes in some form, or would you rather
> > see everything happening in the wrapper?
> 
> I don't have a strong preference one way or another, but keeping
> everything in a wrapper script might be easier if only because you
> wouldn't need to get signoffs from whoever maintains checkpatch too.

Keeping everything in a wrapper script would also allow
any arbitrary checker to be run with minimal changes to
the Makefile/build subsystem.