From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:23:28 -0800 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [RFC] MAINTAINERS tag for cleanup robot In-Reply-To: <751803306cd957d0e7ef6a4fc3dbf12ebceaba92.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20201121165058.1644182-1-trix@redhat.com> <20201122032304.GE4327@casper.infradead.org> <20201122145635.GG4327@casper.infradead.org> <0819ce06-c462-d4df-d3d9-14931dc5aefc@redhat.com> <751803306cd957d0e7ef6a4fc3dbf12ebceaba92.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards > using tools like checkpatch It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial line-by-line parser and it has no concept of code intent. It just can't warn on every use of the sprintf family. There are just too many perfectly valid uses. > but there's no benefit and a lot of harm to > be done by trying to churn the entire tree Single uses of sprintf for sysfs is not really any problem. But likely there are still several possible overrun sprintf/snprintf paths in sysfs. Some of them are very obscure and unlikely to be found by a robot as the logic for sysfs buf uses can be fairly twisty. But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn considerations should generally have less importance.