linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] soundwire: fix style issues

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:18:22 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com,
        jank@...ence.com, joe@...ches.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] soundwire: fix style issues


>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/Kconfig b/drivers/soundwire/Kconfig
>>>> index 19c8efb9a5ee..84876a74874f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>>>>    
>>>>    menuconfig SOUNDWIRE
>>>>    	bool "SoundWire support"
>>>> -	---help---
>>>> +	help
>>>
>>> Not sure if this is a style issue, kernel seems to have 2990 instances
>>> of this!
>>
>> this is reported by checkpatch.pl --strict.
> 
> Please don't run checkpatch on code that's already in the kernel, and
> especially not with the --strict (a.k.a. --subjective) option enabled.
> 
> Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

I would agree in general, but this case is different: the SoundWire code 
in the upstream kernel is missing parts left and right and isn't fully 
functional as is. I will soon be posting what's missing, so this cleanup 
is an opportunity to bring SoundWire to the latest coding standards 
before adding the missing pieces which will be compliant with --strict. 
For the record using --strict already exposed 3 major issues in the 
yet-to-be-released code, so it's not as subjective as you describe it.