linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: rtl8192u: Corrects 'Avoid CamelCase' for variables

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:04:53 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Camylla Cantanheide <c.cantanheide@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkcamp@...ts.libreplanetbr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: rtl8192u: Corrects 'Avoid CamelCase' for
 variables

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:31:27PM -0300, Camylla Cantanheide wrote:
> Dear Dan Carpenter and Joe Perches,
> 
> Thank you very much for the suggestions, I found the evaluation of both
> very significant. Now, I have another perspective on variables.
> 
> I solved the problem for the *setKey *function, however, when executing the
> checkpatch, more *Checks* of the same type appeared.

If your changed introduces more warnings then you should fix them.  Like
say you rename variables and now the line goes over 80 characters, then
fix the new 80 character warning.  But if it was already over 80
characters then ignore the warning.

> 
> Should I send the second version of the patch, only to the *setKey*
> function or do I resolve all *Checks* for the entire file?

We want patches which are easy to review.  If you change everything in
the file, it will probably be too complicated for me to review.  So I
guess ignore those warnings.

regards,
dan carpenter