linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch] checkpatch: test identifier lengths

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: <20180216204459.GB1800@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 21:44:59 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Yash Omer <yashomer0007@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] checkpatch: test identifier lengths

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:31:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:13:27 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 15:55 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:06:34PM +0530, Yash Omer wrote:
> > > > This patch fix line should not end with open parenthesis found by checkpatch.plscript.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yash Omer <yashomer0007@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > index 52054a528723..39fb737543b5 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > @@ -383,8 +383,8 @@ static void nvec_request_master(struct work_struct *work)
> > > >  		msg = list_first_entry(&nvec->tx_data, struct nvec_msg, node);
> > > >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nvec->tx_lock, flags);
> > > >  		nvec_gpio_set_value(nvec, 0);
> > > > -		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> > > > -				&nvec->ec_transfer, msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> > > > +		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout
> > > > +			(&nvec->ec_transfer, msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> > > 
> > > The original code is basically fine...  It's OK to ignore checkpatch in
> > > this situation.
> > 
> > Right.
> 
> Yes, I'd say that checkpatch is simply wrong here.  I'd prefer that a
> function call always have the opening paren hard up against the
> function name.  Because I often search for "foo(" to find the callsites
> of foo() and I expect that some code-parsing tools do the same thing. 
> The "(" is the application of an operator to an identifier.
> 
> So I'd vote for simply nuking that checkpatch warning altogether. 

That's my vote as well, I do that same type of search.

thanks,

greg k-h