linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] rust: macros: add authors

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

Message-ID: <23097a11-2bf3-4ae0-a1d8-9df5f772e15d@sedlak.dev>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:29:48 +0100
From: Daniel Sedlak <daniel@...lak.dev>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: guilherme giacomo simoes <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>,
 Wayne Campbell <wcampbell1995@...il.com>, ojeda@...nel.org,
 alex.gaynor@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net,
 bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, benno.lossin@...ton.me, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
 aliceryhl@...gle.com, tmgross@...ch.edu, walmeida@...rosoft.com,
 fujita.tomonori@...il.com, tahbertschinger@...il.com,
 rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] rust: macros: add authors



On 12/9/24 12:47 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 11:15 AM Daniel Sedlak <daniel@...lak.dev> wrote:
>>
>> I think we could fight with the code formatting, because when it comes
>> to the rust macros, rustfmt is often very confused and we could end up
>> with variations like:
>>
>>          authors: ["author1", "author2",
>>                          "author3"]
>>
>> or
>>
>>          authors: [
>>                     "author1",
>>                     "author2",
>>                    ]
>>
>> and rustfmt would be totally ok with both of them.
> 
> Yeah, that is a good point. There are hundreds of drivers with 2+
> authors, so this could indeed be an issue eventually.
> 
> Having said that, we already have e.g. the `alias` and `firmware` keys
> that take a list, so I think we already have the potential issue, thus
> being consistent in our use of lists sounds simpler (unless we are
> discussing migrating those away too).

Ops, it did not occur to me, that we already have lists. I would propose 
to migrate them too, however it may be controversial.
> 
> We could also try to mitigate the formatting issue via e.g.
> `checkpatch.pl` if needed.

That is true, it could be part of `checkpatch.pl`, however I would argue 
that if we can overcame the formatting problems by repeating the field, 
instead of modifying `checkpatch.pl`, then none code is better than some 
code (regarding modifying `checkpatch.pl`).

Thank you for feedback

Daniel