linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] .clang-format: Remove conditional comments

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]

Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 22:33:27 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] .clang-format: Remove conditional comments

Hi Joe,

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:29 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> Now that the clang minimum supported version is > 10.0, enable the
> commented out conditional reformatting key:value lines in the file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> ---
>
> Hey Miguel.
>
> I don't use this, but on its face it seems a reasonable change
> if the commented out key:value lines are correct.

It is, yeah; however, the concern is that there may be developers
running an old clang-format from their distro (i.e. not using it for
compiling the kernel). We need to compare the functionality advantage
vs. the inconvenience of installing a current LLVM. The best would be
to ask whoever is using it right now, but there is no easy way to do
that -- many will only notice when the change is actually pushed :-)

So far, I have avoided upgrading the requirement until clang-format
could match the kernel style even better (i.e. so that when the
upgrade happens, there is a reason for it). Also, the configuration
can be overridden in subfolders, thus a maintainer can push things
forward in a subsystem meanwhile.

Cheers,
Miguel