linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ftrace: remove check of list iterator against head past the loop body

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 01:39:48 +0200
From:   Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: remove check of list iterator against head past
 the loop body



> On 1. Apr 2022, at 01:34, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 01:22:58 +0200
> Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Can you move this to the first declaration to keep the nice "upside-down
>>> x-mas tree" look.  
>> 
>> Thanks, I'll fix that up. It seems like this is not applied on the entire kernel
>> making treewide changes a bit more difficult. Is it documented somewhere, which
>> parts of the kernel enforce this? Just looking two lines down from here it
>> seems to be 'broken' already so just from looking at existing code it's often
>> hard to judge.
> 
> It's one of those things that some maintainers prefer (I'm one of them ;-)
> because it makes it easier to read IMHO.
> 
> But as you noticed, it's broken even in the same file. That's because I
> don't strictly enforce it. If there's a lot of code that looks good to go
> in, I don't ask to fix it. But as this was a small trivial patch, I figured
> I'd mention it.

I'm happy to fix it, I was just checking coding-style.rst and checkpatch.pl
and was hoping to find this documented somewhere.

> 
> Thus, it's something that you do when asked, but don't worry about doing it
> across the board, you are not going to upset anybody by forgetting to do it.

I guess then I'll stick with the strategy to incorporate when it's obvious
or to my knowledge (net/*) and otherwise fix when pointed out :)

Thanks for the additional info.

> 
> -- Steve

	Jakob