linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] rust: str: add {make,to}

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 20:55:52 +0100
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, a.hindborg@...sung.com,
 alex.gaynor@...il.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
 boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 ojeda@...nel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, wedsonaf@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] rust: str: add {make,to}_{upper,lower}case() to
 CString

On 2/20/24 17:53, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 4:53 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The rational for a convention can't be that it is a convention. Instead
>> it should be a convention for an objective reason.
> 
> The rationale __for the lint__ is that it is a very established
> convention in Rust code.

Understood. I'm basically just asking why this is the convention.

Because I assume that there must be a good reason for that. If there is none,
and it's really just because everyone is doing it, I personally think that's
not an objective rationale.

If there is no other reason it could even be just the opposite causality, as in
it became the convention because clippy enforces it. (Disclaimer: I really don't
know and so far I have no reason to assume so.)

Generally, I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning things and I
also don't think there is anything wrong in not accepting "because everyone does
so" as an objective rationale.

Otherwise I don't see any disagreement. I also understood that you want to be
consistent and comply with this convention and surely I accept that.

But again, I also think it's perfectly valid questioning things.

> 
> That is what Clippy is telling you.
> 
> You may not agree with the convention (and thus the lint). That is
> fine, but it is still a fact that it is the convention, and that is
> why I said whoever wrote that Clippy description probably felt that
> wording is good enough.
> 
>> I'm not saying that we should enforce it otherwise, I just think that we
>> should have objective reasons for restrictions.
> 
> Again, you seem to be saying we do not have objective reasons.

I'm honestly sorry about this misunderstanding and that this seems to be an
emotional discussion for you.

I never said that you don't have objective reasons (in general). I just said that
I don't consider *one specific rationale* as objective (or factual).

And I think it's perfectly valid to claim the right to do so. This isn't a personal
attack in any way.