From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBC8C433FE for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2021 00:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5661F61AA4 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2021 00:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232168AbhJBACT (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2021 20:02:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44838 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232148AbhJBACS (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2021 20:02:18 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFEC8C0613E2 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 17:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id r201so4900455pgr.4 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 17:00:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=NyR0BLvLKJGXSob9Ifla3i3P7VKq6NSER7OryFjz5kw=; b=D4Rb5NZpuDSNx+ISAjTu3oceC69bI/BD0movoPn7MtXhmP43veptQrEEN/0rzGA4Dm zXXstG72cbUCZmZHjnewO0K79iI86YeELhOXvwnrBZ/tLgIw2jvae+0nhAn66b8PX+w1 mywHvk3IWE87W7vLyN2kUTnHuOvl65/nv3CAA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=NyR0BLvLKJGXSob9Ifla3i3P7VKq6NSER7OryFjz5kw=; b=B0AbSqnIs9IrQhxCN+ESqitobhyg/Xu1TuGOGMjpnvfajQEBH7XepY/J3zaXvP1fnQ ZIqG8fE2qVFtdZD5zv71G69teOtXi0xGabkMsAsp779yEJ8hNB9dAAhydIprASgjlpM+ KXvg1+uaSqQDf8SsDhw35XlRqKMtfeVzVEiKzXRCUxXWVesVSyKdHnvbjEgiVbtjHgzG a91QhY0dOdvayPyoq8qAkVOx1MUrxmsJS79cCVPf40bi++5KMjl3ZaM1W7ZqjdY0JqES Q9BXCIeLZjgvaXp8HSD3bLcdTLT0HORtqKetj8LMhq+gQbAzY0TpXiMqOTMKjGtiBf6D XXUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KefCE05L5mJ9SzqcW4+iAiE6O4Pk4BBLbcZSAfliqhG84EuK0 YxSzXrNMRbyiFm3iRJOcCu2RUw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxirD6G77cIgR1B9Ulclv1SoHM6YoexC3zTvyOlIEV0bu2e93K9nYsNB0fJBidlnhqx0zGAWw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:4457:: with SMTP id t23mr685389pgk.354.1633132833327; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 17:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j17sm3282047pga.55.2021.10.01.17.00.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 01 Oct 2021 17:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 17:00:31 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Linus Torvalds , Miguel Ojeda , Jonathan Corbet , Randy Dunlap , Joe Perches , Alexey Dobriyan , Rasmus Villemoes , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes Message-ID: <202110011659.F4F81D4196@keescook> References: <20210930235754.2635912-1-keescook@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:58 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > > > While discussing how to format the addition of various function > > attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as > > close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference. > > > > (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and > > others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.) > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > > While I appreciate you getting the ball across the finish line (having > _any_ documentation to point to in future bikesheds), I can't help but > shake the feeling that the chosen policy will harm the ability of > existing automated code formatting tools from being able to automate > code formatting on the kernel. I am but the messenger here. Is there something specific that'll break if we follow this? -- Kees Cook