linux-kernel - Re: list iterator spacing: clang-format vs checkpatch

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: <CAHmME9p6q5MxLy-_1KaDWz8ksQYAUev1UvaQ-fHhetmy0sNHOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:47:37 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: list iterator spacing: clang-format vs checkpatch

Hey again,

Four years later I went through basically the same motions: "oh hey I
should clean this up", "I'll start with clang format", "oh cool it
adds spaces before the iterator paren so it looks like a normal for
loop to me", "that seems so reasonable; I love clang format", "oh no
checkpatch.pl complains; I hope it's wrong", "I wonder if anybody has
thought about this before", "oh, look, I asked about this already in
2018."

So, here we are again. I'm wondering:
- Can we switch to spaces before iterator parens?
- If not, is clang-format ever going to be fixed to quit adding them?

Regards,
Jason