linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] wfx: add support for WoWLAN on Silabs WF200

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: <23857370.6Emhk5qWAg@nb0018864>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 16:18:32 +0100
From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>
To: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        linux-devel@...abs.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] wfx: add support for WoWLAN on Silabs WF200

On Wednesday 5 March 2025 08:40:51 CET Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-03-04 at 16:22 +0100, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> >
> > Patchwork also reports two warnings that I am going to ignore:
> >
> >   - "Target tree name not specified in the subject", I assume it
> >     is "wireless-next", but in the doubt I prefer to refrain.
> 
> It should be wireless-next for anything that isn't fixes for the current
> cycle, and please do add it - without it the checker won't always be
> able to pick up the patches to test them:
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/ec3a3d891acfe5ed8763271a1df4151d75daf25f.camel@sipsolutions.net/__;!!N30Cs7Jr!X-PjgfbhIZWbgAa9xgbQsoUtAFxrhIPOL3GoEq_3Nan4ktwxzvTu7V17Q3HSxfYgjtdupGn3xRoIJwxLu9f0CcZx3Ys$
> 
> >   - Lines are larger then 80 columns. Checkpatch.pl now accepts up
> >     to 100 columns. I am not aware any local exception in net/, right?
> 
> It looks like that's not documented
> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html__;!!N30Cs7Jr!X-PjgfbhIZWbgAa9xgbQsoUtAFxrhIPOL3GoEq_3Nan4ktwxzvTu7V17Q3HSxfYgjtdupGn3xRoIJwxLu9f0sNiJZZA$ ), but I had a
> conversation with Jakub about this in the past and he prefers to have
> the checks still at 80 because people were, in his telling, abusing it
> in a way and making really long lines for no good reason.
> 
> I'm not going to be super strict about it, but I'd encourage everyone
> who sees that warning to see if they can do better.
> 
> In this particular case, it's just a comment, so could trivially be
> wrapped, but I'm not going to complain about 85 columns. If someone's
> going to 100 columns with (text) comments though then I think that'd
> raise some eyebrows. Narrower text is easier to read anyway.

Thank you for the detailed answer.

I will send a new version in a couple of days. Thus the various robots
have time to test it.

-- 
Jérôme Pouiller