linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211001190927.GA18097@uver-machine>
Date:   Sat, 2 Oct 2021 00:39:27 +0530
From:   Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>
Cc:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Document some more message
 types

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:53:05AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 11:43 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@...il.com> writes:
> > 
> > > 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(+)
> > 
> > So...when you send multiple patches with the same subject line that's
> > always a bad sign.  We really want a "git --oneline" listing to give a
> > good idea of what the patch does, and that depends on more descriptive
> > subject lines.
> > 
> > In this case, something like:
> > 
> >   docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> > 
> > I can fix up these two patches, but please try to keep this in mind for
> > future work.
> > 
> > (applying the patches now).
> 
> The unnecessary_else description isn't particularly good as the
> checkpatch output doesn't describe multiple if/else if/else if type
> returns where the message should not apply.
> 
> For this type of use, the checkpatch message is not necessarily correct
> and because it could be a patch context, there's no way for checkpatch
> to know if it's correct or not.
> 
> 	if (foo) {
> 		...
> 	} else if (bar) {
> 		...
> 		return [val];
> 	} else {
> 		...
> 	}
> 

Sorry, my bad. I have sent a new patch for the UNNECESSARY_ELSE test.
So please do review it.

Maybe we should add a check for the continue statement also, because it is
similar to the break and return statements, and using else after continue
statement is unnecessary.

Regards,
Utkarsh Verma