linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch.pl: warn about // comments on private Rust items

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: <8ff76bf6-b5a5-4030-ad02-e0e56acdb730@arnaud-lcm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 08:15:25 +0100
From: Arnaud Lecomte <contact@...aud-lcm.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
 Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
 Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
 Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
 Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
 llvm@...ts.linux.dev, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch.pl: warn about // comments on private
 Rust items

Hi everyone !
Is there any update so far ?

Best regards,
Arnaud

On 23/04/2025 12:33, Arnaud Lecomte wrote:
> On 22/04/2025 17:32, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 4:37 PM Arnaud Lecomte 
>> <contact@...aud-lcm.com> wrote:
>>> As mentioned earlier, we can reduce the score of any heuristic which
>>> could lead to any important false positive.
>>> In my opinion, as long as the heuristic is relevant, we always have the
>>> possibility to diminish the score associated with the heuristic, hence
>>> preventing unnecessary false positives.
>> Definitely (my comment above for this one was just a note, i.e. there
>> may be nothing to change -- I just thought the commit message referred
>> to just checking "Return" and not "Returns", since it said
>> "imperative").
>>
>>> I think that you are definitely more experienced with what's done
>>> commonly in rust code. Let's maybe change this heuristic definition 
>>> with
>>> @ related to types or some other annotation. Do you have some example I
>>> could have a look to come in the next version with a relevant list of @
>>> we can encounter.
>> What does "references" mean in that heuristic? If you mean external
>> links to some URL, then we typically use Markdown for those. The
>> inline ones like `<https://...>`happen in both comments and docs. The
>> `[...]: https://...` ones are way less common in comments I think (I
>> can't find one).
> We should then remove it. I'll wait for other reviewers for their 
> feedback and then send a new version of the patch serie. Thanks :)
>> As for `@`, if you mean the actual character, I grepped for it in Rust
>> files with the /.*@ regex and found just ~13 matches, and all were the
>> emails and disambiguators I mentioned. So I don't think we really use
>> it for "references" (assuming I understand what that means).
>>
>> I guess you already looked in some `rust/kernel/` files -- some of
>> those are really the best examples of how docs and comments should
>> generally be written.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Miguel
>>