netdev - Re: pull request: wireless 2012-02-20

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: <CAMXE1-qB8_5oGey2=Ypa5BitZnye3YqdM=yB8oKCGLvoZu_8HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:38:16 +0200
From:	Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko.news@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	linville@...driver.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull request: wireless 2012-02-20

Hi David,

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:14:36 -0500
>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:23:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:37:40 -0500
>>>
>>> > Here is another batch of fixes intended for 3.3.  Most of the fixes
>>> > this time are for Bluetooth.
>>>
>>> Pulled, but please read the bluetooth changes more carefully in the
>>> future, there were a lot of coding style errors introduced this
>>> time around.
>>
>> I pinged Johan about this, and he tells me that he spoke to Marcel
>> as well.  They were a bit unsure about the issue.  Is your concern
>> primarily about some excessive tabbing for indentation of parameters
>> and such?
>
> So you actually looked at the changes you pushed to me and you are
> telling me you personally can't find anything that looks like garbage?
>
> Really?  Do I really have to point out such obvious stuff like this?
> Are you serious?
>
> Look at ca0d6c7ece0e78268cd7c5c378d6b1b610625085 ("Bluetooth: Add
> missing QUIRK_NO_RESET test to hci_dev_do_close")
>
> You tell me what the heck you think of this thing.
>
> -       if (!test_bit(HCI_RAW, &hdev->flags)) {
> +       if (!test_bit(HCI_RAW, &hdev->flags) &&
> +                               test_bit(HCI_QUIRK_NO_RESET, &hdev->quirks)) {
>
> That's disgusting, it jumps off the screen and says "Hello, I am ugly
> as sin".  How in the world can you miss something like this?  Four
> TABs on the second line?  Why?  I can't believe we even have to discuss
> something like this, seriously.

Sorry did we understand wrong text of Linux coding style? Or do we need
right interpretation of it?

http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/CodingStyle

Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks.
Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and are placed
substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers with a long
argument list. Long strings are as well broken into shorter strings. The
only exception to this is where exceeding 80 columns significantly increases
readability and does not hide information.

void fun(int a, int b, int c)
{
	if (condition)
		printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with "
						"3 parameters a: %u b: %u "
						"c: %u \n", a, b, c);
	else
		next_statement;
}

>
> Commit 6e1da683f79a22fafaada62d547138daaa9e3456 ("Bluetooth: l2cap_set_timer
> needs jiffies as timeout value"):
>
> -               __set_chan_timer(chan, L2CAP_DISC_REJ_TIMEOUT);
> +               __set_chan_timer(chan,
> +                               msecs_to_jiffies(L2CAP_DISC_REJ_TIMEOUT));
>
> You can't see that mis-tabbed thing on the second new line?  Really?

Are those lines longer then 80 characters?
Otherwise same applies here.

Regards,
Andrei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html