linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sparc/kernel: Fix syntax error

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]

Message-ID: <CAGRGNgUW30BYGyPOwwV-zteO7O4gjVgZ4NsoP-xLhuG994bL7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:11:30 +1000
From:   Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
To:     wuyonggang001@...suo.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc/kernel: Fix syntax error

Hi Yonggang,

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 4:19 PM <wuyonggang001@...suo.com> wrote:
>
> Fix the following checkpatch error:
>
> ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
> ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0
> ERROR: trailing whitespace

While this patch is mostly correct and is fixing real issues with this
code, it is very old code in a very old part of the kernel and the
maintainers are unlikely to apply it as they'd prefer to leave it
as-is and not introduce any potential for regressions.

>
> Signed-off-by: Yonggang Wu <wuyonggang001@...suo.com>
> ---
>   arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c
> index ecd05bc0a104..40b9c72ad4d9 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/apc.c
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static int apc_probe(struct platform_device *op)
>       if (!apc_no_idle)
>           sparc_idle = apc_swift_idle;
>
> -    printk(KERN_INFO "%s: power management initialized%s\n",
> +    pr_info("%s: power management initialized%s\n",

While this is most likely harmless, this is technically a change in
behaviour and should have been noted in the commit message. Also, as
this is technically a change in behaviour, it will make it even less
likely that this will be applied.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/