linux-kernel - [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Document some more message types

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210925201746.15917-1-utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Sep 2021 01:47:46 +0530
From:   Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@...il.com>
To:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Document some more message types

Added and documented 3 new message types:
- UNNECESSARY_INT
- UNSPECIFIED_INT
- UNNECESSARY_ELSE

Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@...il.com>
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
index f0956e9ea2d8..2dc74682277f 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
@@ -929,6 +929,13 @@ Functions and Variables
 
       return bar;
 
+  **UNNECESSARY_INT**
+    int used after short, long and long long is unnecessary. So remove it.
+
+  **UNSPECIFIED_INT**
+    Kernel style prefers "unsigned int <foo>" over "unsigned <foo>" and
+    "signed int <foo>" over "signed <foo>".
+
 
 Permissions
 -----------
@@ -1166,3 +1173,43 @@ Others
 
   **TYPO_SPELLING**
     Some words may have been misspelled.  Consider reviewing them.
+
+  **UNNECESSARY_ELSE**
+    Using an else statement just after a return or a break statement is
+    unnecassary. For example::
+
+      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+              int foo = bar();
+              if (foo < 1)
+                      break;
+              else
+                      usleep(1);
+      }
+
+    is generally better written as::
+
+      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+              int foo = bar();
+              if (foo < 1)
+                      break;
+              usleep(1);
+      }
+
+    So remove the else statement. But suppose if a if-else statement each
+    with a single return statement, like::
+
+      if (foo)
+              return bar;
+      else
+              return baz;
+
+    then by removing the else statement::
+
+      if (foo)
+              return bar;
+      return baz;
+
+    their is no significant increase in the readability and one can argue
+    that the first form is more readable because of indentation, so for
+    such cases do not convert the existing code from first form to second
+    form or vice-versa.
-- 
2.25.1