linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: remove trailing whitespace

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: <20190406011858.GJ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 6 Apr 2019 02:18:59 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@...il.com>
Cc:     luisbg@...nel.org, clm@...com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: remove trailing whitespace

On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 01:07:23AM +0100, Radostin Stoyanov wrote:
> $ cd fs/
> $ find . -type f -exec sed --in-place 's/[[:space:]]\+$//' {} \+
> 
> Signed-off-by: Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@...il.com>

No.  That's not the way to do that kind of stuff.  First, how it
should be done (and that really belongs somewhere in Documentation/):
after having convinced Linus that mechanical change in question needs
to happen, you ask him to run the script in question just before the
-rc1 of the next cycle.

Reason for _not_ doing it as you have: you are creating a pile of
conflicts with any number of development branches in various trees,
for no good reason.  It's a bloody bad idea, especially for something
this trivial.

What's more, some of those (and the most heavily affected ones) bear
rather interesting comments:
 * This translation table was generated automatically, the
 * original table can be download from the Microsoft website.
 * (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/unicode/unicodecp.htm)

_If_ it's autogenerated, I'd suggest leaving it alone, or modifying
whatever tool has been used to produce the damn thing.  FWIW, the
situation might be even more unpleasant - URL in the comment is
stale.  Finding the source actually used is not trivial -
poking on archive.org gives multiple versions of the data
that comment probably refers to.

It would be nice to straighten that mess - as it is, we are
probably not stepping into the section 3 there, but "the arrays
below had been produced by some tool (not included) from some
version(s) of the tables once reachable via links on now-defunct
webpage at $URL" is not a good situation, even if nobody really
gives a damn about those tables...