linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats

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:   Fri, 14 May 2021 12:32:39 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shreyansh Chouhan <chouhan.shreyansh630@...il.com>
Cc:     pure.logic@...us-software.ie, johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats_attrs definition

On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 13:53 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 5/14/21 10:56 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-05-14 at 17:30 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 08:42:16PM +0530, Shreyansh Chouhan wrote:
> > []
> > > > I didn't look at how/where was the macro called and missed a very
> > > > obvious error. Now that I have looked at it, the only way I can think of
> > > > fixing this is changing the macro to a (inline?) function. Will
> > > > that be a desirable change?
> > > 
> > > No, it can't be a function, the code is fine as-is, checkpatch is just a
> > > perl script and does not always know what needs to be done.
> > 
> > true.
> > 
> > perhaps better though to rename these declaring macros to start with declare_
> 
> I don't disagree with your suggestion, but it's not clear it
> would have prevented submission of the erroneous initial patch
> (nor future ones from people who blindly follow checkpatch.pl
> suggestions).

With my checkpatch maintainer hat on:

Yeah Alex, I know.  checkpatch can't teach people c either.
There's not much to do other than try to make the code clearer.
Adding exceptions to checkpatch only leads to other exceptions
and false negatives...

> PS  Lots of negatives in that sentence.

Only positives...

cheers, Joe