linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for the 'list' doubly linked list

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: <20191030104217.GA18421@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:42:17 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for
 the 'list' doubly linked list

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 01:02:11AM -0700, David Gow wrote:
> > ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
> > #869: FILE: lib/list-test.c:680:
> > +static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> >
> >
> > I am seeing these error and warns. As per our hallway conversation, the
> > "for_each*" in the test naming is tripping up checkpatch.pl
> >
> > For now you can change the name a bit to not trip checkpatch and maybe
> > explore fixing checkpatch to differentiate between function names
> > with "for_each" in them vs. the actual for_each usages in the code.
> 
> Thanks, Shuah.
> 
> Yes, the problem here is that checkpatch.pl believes that anything
> with "for_each" in its name must be a loop, so expects that the open
> brace is placed on the same line as for a for loop.
> 
> Longer term, I think it'd be nicer, naming-wise, to fix or work around
> this issue in checkpatch.pl itself, as that'd allow the tests to
> continue to follow a naming pattern of "list_test_[x]", where [x] is
> the name of the function/macro being tested. Of course, short of
> trying to fit a whole C parser in checkpatch.pl, that's going to
> involve some compromises as well.

Just make it a black list of the 5 most common for_each macros.

> 
> In the meantime, I'm sending out v7 which replaces "for_each" with
> "for__each" (adding the extra underscore), so that checkpatch is
> happy.

It's better to ignore checkpatch and other scripts when they are wrong.
(unless the warning message inspires you to make the code more readable
for humans).

regards,
dan carpenter