linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Alignment warning

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]

Message-ID: <a5477192-ee6f-4273-b7b4-1d9dbd7e7b50@riscstar.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 07:15:01 -0500
From: Alex Elder <elder@...cstar.com>
To: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@...il.com>, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
 johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Alignment warning

On 3/22/25 1:58 AM, Erick Karanja wrote:
> Correct the alignment of the parameters to match the open parenthesis.
> 
> Reported by checkpatch:
> 
>      CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis

I think this change is OK.  However you'll notice that checkpatch.pl
has three categories of issues that get reported:  errors, warnings,
and checks.  These are in decreasing order of severity.

Alignment issues like this are just "checks", which means they are
minor nits that are often not considered a "real" problem.  In many
cases, white space variances like this are done intentionally, to
make the code more readable, or sometimes simply because the code
that surrounds it used a different convention for alignment (some
people simply align to an even number of tabs, for example).

In this case, the change doesn't make the "look" of the code any
worse, and doesn't reduce readability.  It furthermore gets rid
of spaces after a tab that do *not* lead to the suggested alignment.
It probably isn't a necessary change, but I think it's reasonable.

I write all this to explain that these sorts of changes are in many
cases rejected.

I'll leave it to Greg to accept this, or offer a second opinion.

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@...cstar.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> index 5d80ace41d8e..ec9fddfc0b14 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> @@ -1165,8 +1165,8 @@ static int gb_camera_debugfs_init(struct gb_camera *gcam)
>   		gcam->debugfs.buffers[i].length = 0;
>   
>   		debugfs_create_file_aux(entry->name, entry->mask,
> -				    gcam->debugfs.root, gcam, entry,
> -				    &gb_camera_debugfs_ops);
> +					gcam->debugfs.root, gcam, entry,
> +					&gb_camera_debugfs_ops);
>   	}
>   
>   	return 0;