linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] checkpatch: Add dev_err

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: <ZWoS3gyJukQkndqY@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 19:07:42 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] checkpatch: Add dev_err_probe() to the list of
 Log Functions

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 08:34:14AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/1/23 08:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 08:01:28AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 12/1/23 07:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > dev_err_probe() is missing in the list of Log Functions and hence
> > > > checkpatch issues a warning in the cases when any other function
> > > > in use won't trigger it. Add dev_err_probe() to the list to behave
> > > > consistently.

...

> > > Not sure if I agree. The difference here is that dev_err_probe()
> > > has two additional parameters ahead of the string. I would very much prefer
> > > to have those two additional parameters on a separate line if the string is
> > > too long to fit in 100 columns with those two parameters on the same line.
> > > In other words, I very much prefer
> > > 
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING,
> > > 		      "very long string");
> > > over
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING, "very long string");
> > > 
> > > and I don't really think that the latter has any benefits.
> > > 
> > > Also note that other dev_xxx() log functions are not included in the above test
> > > and would still generate warnings. Accepting
> > > 
> > > 	dev_err_probe(dev, -ESOMETHING, "very long string");
> > > but not
> > > 	dev_err(dev, "very long string");
> > 
> > They are included, see the line previous to the added one.
> > (Regexp covers something like x_y_()* and x_*() families with the explicitly
> >   listed * suffixes.)
> > 
> > That's why _this_ change makes it consistent.
> > 
> 
> Hmm ok. Still don't like it.

But then it's orthogonal to the change as with consistent behaviour you may
propose a fix that makes sure that long string literal goes to a separate line
(after a threshold) for _all_ of them at once. Currently the behaviour is
inconsistent independently on somebody's preferences...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko