linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Sort headers alphabetically

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:31:37 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Sort headers alphabetically

On Sat 2023-08-05 20:50:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Sorting headers alphabetically helps locating duplicates, and
> make it easier to figure out where to insert new headers.

I agree that includes become a mess after some time. But I am
not persuaded that sorting them alphabetically in random source
files help anything.

Is this part of some grand plan for the entire kernel, please?
Is this outcome from some particular discussion?
Will this become a well know rule checked by checkpatch.pl?

I am personally not going to reject patches because of wrongly
sorted headers unless there is some real plan behind it.

I agree that it might look better. An inverse Christmas' tree
also looks better. But it does not mean that it makes the life
easier. The important things are still hidden in the details
(every single line).

>From my POV, this patch would just create a mess in the git
history and complicate backporting.

I am sorry but I will not accept this patch unless there
is a wide consensus that this makes sense.

Best Regards,
Petr