linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] checkpatch: add verbose mode

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: <20210225215501.2408c97b@coco.lan>
Date:   Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:55:01 +0100
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
To:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] checkpatch: add verbose mode

Em Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:38:03 +0530
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com> escreveu:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:03 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 13:22 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:  
> > > Add a new verbose mode to checkpatch. The verbose test
> > > descriptions are read from the checkpatch documentation
> > > file at `Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst`.
> > >
> > > The verbose mode is optional and can be enabled by the
> > > flag -v or --verbose.
> > >
> > > The documentation file is only parsed by checkpatch.pl
> > > if the verbose mode is enabled. The verbose mode can
> > > not be used together with the --terse option.  
> >
> > I don't have any real objection to this patch set, but as this
> > might be added to the Documentation tree and in .rst format,
> > perhaps Jonathan Corbet and/or Mauro Carvalho Chehab might have
> > some opinion.
> >
> > Also I do not want to be a maintainer of this .rst file and
> > likely neither Jon nor Mauro would either.  Perhaps you?
> >  
> 
> I could take it up if everybody is okay with it!
> 
> > Ideally, the patch order would be reversed so the .rst file
> > is added first, then checkpatch updated to use it.
> >  
> 
> Sure, if Jonathan or Mauro has no objections to it, I will be happy
> to resend it so that it can be picked up properly.

I don't have any objections, provided that I won't be maintaining
it :-)

-

Just my two cents:

IMO, maintaining this on a separate file can be a maintenance nightmare, 
as this is the kind of thing that can become obsolete real soon.

One alternative would be to use Pod::Usage module, just like
this script does:

	scripts/get_abi.pl

with something similar to that, calling

	$ checkpatch --man 

Could generate a man-page style with all options, while:

	$ checkpatch --help

would print the current help page.

Yet, this would generate more work for Joe, as, for every new
type, the corresponding help text would be needed.

Thanks,
Mauro