linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] checkpatch: check format of Vec<String> in modules

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: <CANiq72md_orajH_TREr=ng8Y=o3Xkgw-V5oxbX8vYXOE2UDNaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 12:04:54 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
Cc: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>, alex.gaynor@...il.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com, 
	apw@...onical.com, arnd@...db.de, aswinunni01@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, 
	benno.lossin@...ton.me, bhelgaas@...gle.com, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, 
	boqun.feng@...il.com, dakr@...nel.org, dwaipayanray1@...il.com, 
	ethan.twardy@...il.com, fujita.tomonori@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, joe@...ches.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, ojeda@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu, walmeida@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] checkpatch: check format of Vec<String> in modules

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:53 AM Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Right, it needs a bit more tool support than running checkpatch.pl
> needs. Perhaps we could move it from checkpatch.pl to the rustfmt make
> target?

That could perhaps be an option for this case, though not sure if it
applies to all cases, i.e. `checkpatch.pl` also checks things that
only make sense to check in a patch and also things that are not
related to formatting.

Perhaps we want an entirely separate thing in `tools/` eventually, or
even out of the kernel tree, so that it can be easily run as a bot
etc. like in the past.

In any case, landing checks here is fine (as long as Joe et al.
agree), they can be moved or removed later if needed.

Cheers,
Miguel