linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] remove workarounds for gcc bug wrt unnamed fields in initializers

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

Message-ID: <20200625111012.GA418830@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 11:10:15 +0000
From:   Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>
To:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>
CC:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] remove workarounds for gcc bug wrt unnamed fields
 in initializers

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:40:21PM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> Christoph, Sagi and Keith,
> 
> On 6/24/20 9:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This looks good to me, but I'd rather wait a few releases to
> > avoid too mush backporting pain.
> > 
> 
> Here is a summary, for longer explanation please have a look at the
> end [1] :-
> 
> Pros:
> 1. Code looks uniform and follows strict policy.
> 
> Cons:
> 1. Adds a tab + more char [1] which can lead to line breaks and that can
>     be avoided without following declare-init pattern, less bugs and
>     no pressure to fit the initializer in ~72 char given that we do have
>     some long names and who knows what is in the future.

[BEGIN being silly.. sorry guys, I couldn't resist.. :)]

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/scripts/checkpatch.pl?id=bdc48fa11e46f867ea4d75fa59ee87a7f48be144

Isn't 100 the new 80? ;)

[END being silly]