netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: intel: Cleanup e1000

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:45:58 -0700
From:   Forrest Fleming <ffleming@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: intel: Cleanup e1000 - add space between }}

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 12:02 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 20:41 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 01:03 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:14 +0000, Forrest Fleming wrote:
> > > > > suggested by checkpatch
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Forrest Fleming <ffleming@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  .../net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_param.c    | 28 +++++++++--
> > > > > --------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > While I do not see an issue with this change, I wonder how
> > > > important it is
> > > > to make such a change.  Especially since most of the hardware
> > > > supported by
> > > > this driver is not available for testing.  In addition, this is one
> > > > suggested change by checkpatch.pl that I personally do not agree
> > > > with.
> > >
> > > I think checkpatch should allow consecutive }}.
> >
> > Agreed, have you already submitted a formal patch Joe with the
> > suggested change below?
>
> No.
>
> >   If so, I will ACK it.
>
> Of course you can add an Acked-by:
>

Totally fair - I don't have strong feelings regarding the particular rule. I do
feel strongly that we should avoid violating our rules as encoded by checkpatch,
but I'm perfectly happy for the change to take the form of modifying checkpatch
to allow a perfectly sensible (and readable) construct.

I'm happy to withdraw this patch from consideration; I couldn't find anything
about there being a formal procedure for so doing, so please let me know if
there's anything more I need to do (or point me to the relevant docs).

Thanks to everyone!