linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: Added spaces around ('=' and '<')

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4005910.RbgyVDuFdx@blindfold>
Date:   Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:03:53 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@...il.com>
Cc:     boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: Added spaces around ('=' and '<')

Arushi,

Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2018, 16:38:50 CET schrieb Arushi Singhal:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> > Arushi Singhal,
> > 
> > Am Samstag, 3. März 2018, 15:02:33 CET schrieb Arushi Singhal:
> > > Add spaces around ('=' and '<'),  to conform to the Linux
> > > kernel coding style. Issue found using checkpatch.
> > 
> > please fix real issues. Coding style fixes to existing code just add too
> > much
> > churn. Except for drivers/staging/.
> 
> Hello Richard
> Thanks for explaining,
> 
> > If you're looking for a small MTD related project, I can offer the
> > following.
> > Cleanup all ubi_assert()s in drivers/mtd/ubi/.
> > Some of them need to be transformed into a meaningful warning/error
> > message,
> > others into a hard error, such as WARN_ON().
> > Review/understand every ubi_assert() and convert it.
> 
> Before doing this task, I read about this discussion (
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2014-November/056352.html ).
> In this discussion it is decided to split ubi_assert() into two different
> functions, BUG_ON() and WARN_ON(). Even some of the asserts can be removed
> too.

Very good! You managed to exhume my forgotten TODOs. ;-)

One comment on BUG_ON(), we have to make very sure that it is not user 
trigger-able.

Thanks,
//richard