linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging message

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: <59d1ef8f-4fb0-9af2-f761-b52559c8a699@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:52:38 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, apw@...onical.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging
 message

Le 09/04/2020 à 19:50, Joe Perches a écrit :
> On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 19:34 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Le 09/04/2020 à 17:29, Joe Perches a écrit :
> []
>>> lib/percpu-refcount.c:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s: " fmt "\n", __func__
>> In this file, there are some WARN_ON.
>> Are these log functions also influenced by pr_fmt?
> No.
Ok, thx.
>
>>> drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "bcache: %s() " fmt "\n", __func__
>>> drivers/md/bcache/bset.c:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "bcache: %s() " fmt "\n", __func__
>>> tools/usb/usbip/libsrc/usbip_common.h:#define pr_fmt(fmt)       "%s: %s: " fmt "\n", PROGNAME
>> Tricky because all files that include it have to be checked.
>> I won't touch these ones.
> What a pity I do not know the French equivalent
> for the children's taunt of "chicken!"...

I don't know why the french one is wet, but the translation would be 
"poule mouillée".

In fact, I don't really see the need to modify many files just for some 
kind of style.
(same reason why I think that checkpatch is a better place for a test 
than submitting hundreds of patches based on coccinelle)


 From your point of view, does auditing and fixing these missing \n make 
sense?
Wouldn't it just be a lot of noise for a small benefit?


CJ