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  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 16:11:29 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Maintainer Entry Profile

On 9/11/19 12:43 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, I completely agree with Dan (Carpenter) here. I absolutely
dislike having these kinds of files, and with subsystems imposing weird
restrictions on style (like the quoted example, yuck).

Additionally, it would seem saner to standardize rules around when
code is expected to hit the maintainers hands for kernel releases. Both
yours and Martins deals with that, there really shouldn't be the need
to have this specified in detail per sub-system.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists