linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: fix false positives in REPEATED

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: <2cbc0068-4e3e-17d5-6260-dda7c9f3a9b0@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 24 Oct 2020 23:42:03 +0530
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        dwaipayanray1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: fix false positives in REPEATED_WORD
 warning

On 24/10/20 9:03 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-10-24 at 18:54 +0530, Aditya wrote:
>>> Would you like to work on 
>>> further rules that can be improved with your evaluation approach?
>>
>> Yes, I would like work on further rules.
> 
> Some generic ideas:
> 
> How about working to reduce runtime and complexity by
> making the rules extensible or separable at startup.
> 
> Maybe move each existing rules into a separate
> directory as an individual file and aggregate them at
> checkpatch startup.
> 
> Maybe look at the existing rules that do not have a
> $fix option and add them as appropriate.
> 
> You could fix the multiline indentation where the
> current warning and fix is only for a single line
> 
> 	value = function(arg1,
> 		arg2,
> 		arg3);
> 
> where checkpatch emits only single warning and fix
> for the line with arg2, but not the line with arg3);
> 
> Maybe try to make the coding styles supported more
> flexible:
> 
> Allow braces in different places, support different
> tab indentation sizes, spacing rules around operators,
> function definition layouts, etc.
> 
> 
> 

Thanks for all these suggestions. I'll make observations regarding
these and get back to you :)

Aditya