linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Match parentheses alignment

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c502a48ded02fb681a5978b5af888c74be9625ec.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:11:40 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Zhansaya Bagdauletkyzy <zhansayabagdaulet@...il.com>
Cc:     johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Match parentheses alignment

On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 09:35 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 4/14/21 9:29 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:17 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > Perhaps (like the -W options for GCC) there
> > > could be a way to specify in a Makefile which checkpatch
> > > messages are reported/not reported?  I don't claim that's
> > > a good suggestion, but if I could optionally indicate
> > > somewhere that "two consecutive blank lines is OK for
> > > Greybus" (one example that comes to mind) I might do so.
> > 
> > checkpatch already has --ignore=<list> and --types=<list>
> > for the various classes of messages it emits.
> > 
> > see: $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --list-types --verbose
> > 
> > Dwaipayan Ray (cc'd) is supposedly working on expanding
> > the verbose descriptions of each type.
> > 
> 
> That's awesome, I wasn't aware of that.
> 
> Any suggestions on a standardized way to say "in this
> subtree, please provide these arguments to checkpatch.pl"?
> 
> I can probably stick it in a README file or something,
> but is there an existing best practice?

There is no standardized mechanism for this checkpatch use.

Putting something in a staging README is in general a good way for
it to _not_ be read by people doing 'my first kernel patch'.

I still think emitting a message for overly long identifiers could
be a decent checkpatch test.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1518801207.13169.15.camel@perches.com/