linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] CamelCase can it be fixed per Checkpatch.pl script

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]

Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 16:42:37 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Ashok Kumar <ashokemailat@...oo.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC] CamelCase can it be fixed per Checkpatch.pl script

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:20:17PM -0700, Ashok Kumar wrote:
> Found some files in Staging Drivers for which checkpatch.pl throws a CHECK to
> +remove CamelCase.
> 
> For instance in program vt6655/card.c find the usage of CamelCase as
> i) Variable names eg: &priv->apTD0Rings[0]
> ii) Function names eg: void CARDvSafeResetRx(
> 
> Note: some of the functions are
> +static functions
> 
> Reviewed lore and seems in some instances removing CamelCase was allowed and in
> +some case removing them was disallowed.
> 
> Hence wanted comments if we should change them or not.

It's better to work with the corresponding driver maintainer. Generic
comment is that functions must be renamed, while variables / fields
naming usually depends on the maintainer's decision.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry