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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:12:55 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        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 10:27:12AM -0600, shuah wrote:
> > 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).
> > 
> 
> It gets confusing when to ignore and when not to. It takes work to
> figure out and it is subjective.
> 

In this case, it's not subjective because checkpatch is clearly not
working as intended.

I don't feel like "checkpatch clean" is a useful criteria for applying
patches.  If someone sends a patch and I can spot a bunch of checkpatch
issues with my bare eyeballs then I get slightly annoyed for wasting my
time.  But as a reviewer, I mostly care about my own judgement.  Can I
understand what the code is doing?  It is subjective, but I'm smarter
than a Perl script and I try to be kind to people.

The other things about warnings is that I always encourage people to
just ignore old warnings.  If you're running Smatch and you see a
warning in ancient code that means I saw it five years ago and didn't
fix it so it's a false positive.  Old warnings are always 100% false
positives.

regards,
dan carpenter