linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3 1/2] net: dlink: fix whitespace around function call

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

Message-Id: <DD16FJFQ33HG.7IJCUH79LHN8@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 01:38:34 +0900
From: "Yeounsu Moon" <yyyynoom@...il.com>
To: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "Andrew Lunn" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Paolo Abeni"
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 1/2] net: dlink: fix whitespace around function
 call

On Thu Sep 18, 2025 at 8:06 AM KST, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 03:33:04 +0900 Yeounsu Moon wrote:
>> Remove unnecessary whitespace between function names and the opening
>> parenthesis to follow kernel coding style.
>> 
>> No functional change intended.
>
> please dont mix whitespace changes with fixes

Now that some time has passed, let me recap the situation,
(I initially wanted to summerize the message, but I'm concerned that my
English might cause misunderstanding. So I'll just quote the full
message instead. Sorry about that.)

------------

> > Please don't include white space changes with other changes. It makes
> > the patch harder to review.
> >
> >     Andrew
> Thank you for reviewing!
>
> As you mentioned, it indeed becomes harder to see what the real changes
> are. I have a few questions related to that:
>
> 1. If I remove the whitespace between the funciton name and the
> parenthesis, `checkpatch.pl` will warn about it. Of course, I understand
> that we don't need to follow such rules in a mindessly robotic way.
>
> 2. However, I also read in the netdev FAQ that cleanup-only patches are
> discouraged. So I thought it would be better to include the cleanup
> together with the patch. But I see your point, and I'll be more careful
> not to send patches that cause such confusion in the future.
>
> 3. This is more of a personal curiosity: in that case, what would be the
> proper way to handle cleanup patches?

The problem with cleanup patches is that they are often done by
developers who don't have the hardware, and so don't do any
testing. White space changes like this a low risk, but other cleanup
patches are much more risky. So some cleanup patches end up breaking
stuff. We reviewers know this, and so put in more time looking at such
patches and try to make sure they are correct. But cleanup is
generally lower priority than new code. So to some extent, we prefer
the code is left 'dirty but working'.

In this case, you have the hardware. You are testing your change, so
we are much happier to accept such a cleanup patch as part of a
patchset fixing a real problem.

Please submit two patches in a patchset. The first patch fixes the
whitespace. The second fixes the memory problem with copy break. That
should be checkpatch clean. And mention in the commit message that
this has been tested on hardware.

------------

You and Andrew seems to share a similar point of view, and both are
quite reasonable. What do you think about this approach?

	Yeousu Moon