linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active

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: <3d88023b2da9ead8669d4c180b6c11ebf536abe7.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 07 May 2020 13:18:57 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in
 voluntary_active_balance()

On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 15:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2020 12:06:56 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 
> > People describe changes as a "fix" all the time for stuff
> > that isn't an actual fix for a logic defect but is instead
> > an update to a particular style preference.
> > 
> > Then the "fix" word causes the patch to be rather uselessly
> > applied to stable trees by AUTOSEL.
> > 
> > It's especially bad when the 'Fixes: <sha1> ("description")'
> > tag is also added.
> > 
> > It's a difficult thing to regulate and I don't believe a
> > good mechanism would be possible to add to checkpatch or
> > coccinelle to help isolate these things.
> > 
> > git diff -w sometimes helps, but that's not really a thing
> > that checkpatch could do.
> > 
> > Any suggestions?
> 
> I'm unfamiliar with how the coccinelle script is used, but I thought there
> was some discussion some time back to have checkpatch not produces the same
> kinds of warnings to code as it does to patches.
> 
> A lot of useless updates were being submitted when people were running
> checkpatch on existing kernel code and producing warnings that are not
> worth "fixing", but something that new code should try to avoid.

checkpatch already has several blocks that look like

	if (input_is_a_patch)
		warn(...)
	else if (input_is_a_file)
		check(...)

where by default, check() is not output.

I've also suggested variations discouraging checkpatch
use on files outside of drivers/staging/ multiple times

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0753cae7829b98998ac3f5f9fcb52ba1f2475ee1.camel@perches.com/