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  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]
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:43:33 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <>
To:     Dan Williams <>
        Vishal Verma <>,
        Dave Jiang <>,,,
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Maintainer Entry Profile

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:48:59AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> +Coding Style Addendum
> +---------------------
> +libnvdimm expects multi-line statements to be double indented. I.e.
> +
> +        if (x...
> +                        && ...y) {

That looks horrible and it causes a checkpatch warning.  :(  Why not
do it the same way that everyone else does it.

	if (blah_blah_x && <-- && has to be on the first line for checkpatch
	    blah_blah_y) { <-- [tab][space][space][space][space]blah

Now all the conditions are aligned visually which makes it readable.
They aren't aligned with the indent block so it's easy to tell the
inside from the if condition.

I kind of hate all this extra documentation because now everyone thinks
they can invent new hoops to jump through.

Speaking of hoops, the BPF documentation says that you have to figure
out which tree a patch applies to instead of just working against
linux-next.  Is there an automated way to do that?  I looked through my
inbox and there are a bunch of patches marked as going through the
bpf-next tree but about half were marked incorrectly so it looks like
everyone who tries to tag their patches is going to do it badly anyway.

dan carpenter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists