linux-kernel - Re: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend table allocator for multiple sizes

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: <20200210163843.GL14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:38:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com
Subject: Re: Checkpatch being daft, Was: [PATCH -v2 08/10] m68k,mm: Extend
 table allocator for multiple sizes

On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 10:24:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> Maybe this?

This isn't anywhere near RFC compliant, but I do think it greatly
improves the current situation, so:

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>

one little nit below..

> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index f3b8434..17637d0 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -1132,6 +1132,7 @@ sub parse_email {
>  	my ($formatted_email) = @_;
>  
>  	my $name = "";
> +	my $name_comment = "";
>  	my $address = "";
>  	my $comment = "";
>  
> @@ -1164,6 +1165,10 @@ sub parse_email {
>  
>  	$name = trim($name);
>  	$name =~ s/^\"|\"$//g;
> +	$name =~ s/(\s*\([^\)]+\))\s*//;
> +	if (defined($1)) {
> +		$name_comment = trim($1);
> +	}
>  	$address = trim($address);
>  	$address =~ s/^\<|\>$//g;
>  
> @@ -1172,7 +1177,7 @@ sub parse_email {
>  		$name = "\"$name\"";
>  	}
>  
> -	return ($name, $address, $comment);
> +	return ($name, $name_comment, $address, $comment);
>  }
>  
>  sub format_email {
> @@ -1198,6 +1203,23 @@ sub format_email {
>  	return $formatted_email;
>  }
>  
> +sub reformat_email {
> +	my ($email) = @_;
> +
> +	my ($email_name, $name_comment, $email_address, $comment) = parse_email($email);
> +	return format_email($email_name, $email_address);
> +}
> +
> +sub same_email_addresses {
> +	my ($email1, $email2) = @_;
> +
> +	my ($email1_name, $name1_comment, $email1_address, $comment1) = parse_email($email1);
> +	my ($email2_name, $name2_comment, $email2_address, $comment2) = parse_email($email2);
> +
> +	return $email1_name eq $email2_name &&
> +	       $email1_address eq $email2_address;

strictly speaking only _address needs be the same for the whole thing to
arrive at the same inbox, but I suppose that for sanity's sake, this
comparison makes sense.

> +}