linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] staging: rts5208: Add more details to Kconfig help

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: <ab907c56-5d91-482c-8308-fe06c22c7f55@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:42:57 -0500
From: Jacob Lott <jklott.git@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: rts5208: Add more details to Kconfig help


On 1/19/24 1:34 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:17:04PM -0500, Jacob Lott wrote:
>> The current help text is short and triggers a
>> warning from checkpatch.pl. This patch adds more
>> details to the help text which should provide better
>> information for whether or not to enable the driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Lott <jklott.git@...il.com>
>> ---
>> v2 -> v3: Fixed spacing and newline in text
> The commit message is still not line wrapped correctly at 72-75
> characters.  It should have been:
>
> The current help text is short and triggers a warning from checkpatch.pl.
> This patch adds more details to the help text which should provide better
> information for whether or not to enable the driver.
>
> Or:
>
> The current help text is short and triggers a warning from
> checkpatch.pl. This patch adds more details to the help text which
> should provide better information for whether or not to enable the
> driver.
>
>
>> v1 -> v2: Corrected line spacing based off feedback
>>
>>   drivers/staging/rts5208/Kconfig | 10 +++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/rts5208/Kconfig
>> index b864023d3ccb..c4664a26ba3b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/Kconfig
>> @@ -3,7 +3,11 @@ config RTS5208
>>   	tristate "Realtek PCI-E Card Reader RTS5208/5288 support"
>>   	depends on PCI && SCSI
>>   	help
>> -	  Say Y here to include driver code to support the Realtek
>> -	  PCI-E card reader rts5208/rts5288.
>> +	  Choose Y here to enable support for the Realtek PCI-E card reader
>> +	  RTS5208/5288. This driver facilitates communication between the Linux
>> +	  kernel and the Realtek PCI-E card reader.
>>   
>> -	  If this driver is compiled as a module, it will be named rts5208.
>> +	  If you opt to compile this driver as a module, it will be named rts5208.
>> +	  Selecting N will exclude this driver from the kernel build. Choose option
>> +	  Y if your system includes the Realtek PCI-E card reader rts5208/rts5288.
>> +	  When in doubt, it is generally safe to select N.
>
> In the original code there were three lines of help text.
>
> 1)         Say Y here to include driver code to support the Realtek
> 2)         PCI-E card reader rts5208/rts5288.
> 3)         If this driver is compiled as a module, it will be named rts5208.
>
> The minimum that checkpatch wants is 4 lines.
>
> However, I feel like nothing you're adding here is useful information.
> Some of it is just confusing like, "This driver facilitates
> communication between the Linux kernel and the Realtek PCI-E card
> reader."  That line feels like information, but when you think about it,
> it doesn't actually mean anything.  The second paragraph is just
> repeated information so it's kind of a waste of time.
>
> Don't just obey checkpatch for the sake of obeying, if we can't think
> of anything else useful to say then three lines is enough.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Thank you for your feedback. Based off what Dan has said I would agree 
that it is best to leave the information as is.


For the future when talking about line wrapping I've been going based 
off VSCode's row/col count, is this not correct? For reference when 
writing the commit I would use a new line before hitting 72 "col" on 
each row. I ask for the future so I can make better commits.