netdev - Re: RFC : [PATCH] IPV6: checkpatch whitespace corrections

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: <1407970011.2683.9.camel@joe-AO725>
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:46:51 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ian Morris <ipm@...rality.org.uk>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC : [PATCH] IPV6: checkpatch whitespace corrections

On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 21:02 +0100, Ian Morris wrote:
> I started looking at the ipv6 code to educate myself but in the process
> noticed a fair few trivial checkpatch issues. There are some more interesting
> ones also present but before tackling those I decided to try to reduce the 
> volume of output from checkpatch by fixing whitespace issues. Question is 
> are such patches wanted?

Like most things, it depends.

To make reviewing these patches easier, it's better to
separate these changes into at least 2 patches.

1: Horizontal line whitespace changes where git diff -w can be
   shown to have no differences
2: Vertical line whitespace changes where newlines are only
   added or deleted.

In both cases, scripts/objdiff should be run to show no compiler
object output changes occur as well.

In a quick scan, I don't see anything objectionable here.

I'm not a big fan of the forced blank line between declarations
and code though.

You can get checkpatch to not emit those with --ignore=line_spacing

--
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