| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:05:19 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@...il.com>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: checkpatch: add some new checkpatch documentation
messages
Hi Utkarsh,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:25:28AM +0530, Utkarsh Verma wrote:
> Added and documented the following new message types:
> - JIFFIES_COMPARISON
> - LONG_UDELAY
> - MSLEEP
> - INDENTED_LABEL
> - IF_0
> - IF_1
> - MISORDERED_TYPE
> - UNNECESSARY_BREAK
> - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> - UNNECESSARY_INT
> - UNSPECIFIED_INT
>
Use imperative mood for patch description instead.
> + **MISORDERED_TYPE**
> + According to section “6.7.2 Type Specifiers” in C90 standard, “type
> + specifiers may occur in any order.” This means that "signed long long
> + int" is same as "long long int signed". But to avoid confusion and make
> + the code easier to read, the declaration type should use the following
> + format::
> +
> + [[un]signed] [short|int|long|long long]
> +
> + Below is the list of standard integer types. Each row lists all the
> + different ways of specifying a particular type delimited by commas.
> + Note: Also include all the permutations of a particular type
> + on the left column delimited by comma. For example, the permutations
> + for "signed long int" are "signed int long", "long signed int",
> + "long int signed", "int signed long", and "int long signed".
> +
> + +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
> + | Types | Recommended Way |
> + +=======================================================================+
> + | char | char |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | signed char | signed char |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | unsigned char | unsigned char |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | signed, int, signed int | int |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | unsigned, unsigned int | unsigned int |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | short, signed short, short int, signed short int | short |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | unsigned short, unsigned short int | unsigned short |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | long, signed long, long int, signed long int | long |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | unsigned long, unsigned long int | unsigned long |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
> + | long long, signed long long, long long int, | long long |
> + | signed long long int | |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + | unsigned long long, unsigned long long int | unsigned long long |
> + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +
The table above triggers htmldocs error, so I have to apply the fixup:
---- >8 ----
>From 4fcc0df4ffcf1190330c12db5352cae03f8620fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:48:43 +0700
Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: MISORDERED_TYPE table intersection
fixup
Sphinx reported error and warnings pointed at MISORDERED_TYPE table:
Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst:1393: (SEVERE/4) Unexpected section title or transition.
Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst:1393: WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst:1393: WARNING: Unexpected section title or transition.
Fix these above by marking cell intersections with plus (+) sign.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/202208030829.xj2bvI7P-lkp@intel.com/
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
---
Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
index 78abcadb522824..a9d27913e6c46f 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
@@ -1371,30 +1371,30 @@ Others
+--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Types | Recommended Way |
- +=======================================================================+
+ +==================================================+====================+
| char | char |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| signed char | signed char |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| unsigned char | unsigned char |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| signed, int, signed int | int |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| unsigned, unsigned int | unsigned int |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| short, signed short, short int, signed short int | short |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| unsigned short, unsigned short int | unsigned short |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| long, signed long, long int, signed long int | long |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| unsigned long, unsigned long int | unsigned long |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| long long, signed long long, long long int, | long long |
| signed long long int | |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| unsigned long long, unsigned long long int | unsigned long long |
- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
**NOT_UNIFIED_DIFF**
The patch file does not appear to be in unified-diff format. Please
---- >8 ----
> + Also, do not change the code if there is only a single return statement
> + inside if-else block, like::
> +
> + if (a > b)
> + return a;
> + else
> + return b;
> +
> + now if the else statement is removed::
> +
> + if (a > b)
> + return a;
> + return b;
> +
> + there is no considerable increase in the readability and one can argue
> + that the first form is more readable because of the indentation. So
> + do not remove the else statement in case of a single return statement
> + inside the if-else block.
> +
So the first indentation above is more readable for it's clear that
b is returned if the condition is false (in this case, a < b), right?
> + See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20140925032215.GK7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk/
> +
> + **UNNECESSARY_INT**
> + On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 08:52 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> + > "long unsigned int" isn't _technically_ wrong. But we normally
> + > call that type "unsigned long".
> +
IMO, the mail quote above can be deleted.
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists