From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtprelay0057.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.57]:47138 "EHLO
	smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753203AbcFOXKR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:10:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1466032209.19647.20.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce the latent_entropy gcc plugin
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:10:09 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJH2FNenOpAE3Rqh8q=s01sbHmf=QobT98u4h=anjRubw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160615001754.f9e986cf961d1466f5e086dc@gmail.com>
	 <CAGXu5jK-QVhbuOnNENq9PesPTdPCnbgODzb0qn=q4ZMS0-ndBA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20160615223952.f3a4ece452b15c62babf4629@gmail.com>
	 <CAGXu5jJH2FNenOpAE3Rqh8q=s01sbHmf=QobT98u4h=anjRubw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kbuild.vger.kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>, Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>, linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, bart.vanassche@sandisk.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 16:01 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:55:44 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >  The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a strongly
> > >  preferred limit.
> > I think the code looks worse when it is truncated to 80 columns but
> > I'll do it and resend the patches.
> Yup, I understand your concerns, but since we're optimizing for
> readability by a larger audience that has agreed to the guidelines in
> CodingStyle, this is what we get. :)
> 
> One area I'm unclear on with kernel coding style, though, is if
> splitting all the stuff prior to function name onto a separate line is
> "acceptable", since that solves most of the long lines where
> __latent_entropy has been added. For example, I don't know which is
> better:
> 
> All on one line (gmail may split this, but my intention is all one line):
> 
> static __latent_entropy void rcu_process_callbacks(struct
> softirq_action *unused)
> 
> Types and attributes on a separate line:
> 
> static __latent_entropy void
> rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> 
> All arguments on the next line:
> 
> static __latent_entropy void rcu_process_callbacks(
>                                                           struct
> softirq_action *unused)
> 
> 
> Greg, do you have a better sense of how to split (or not split) these
> kinds of long lines?

Another option is to add __latent_entropy the same way most
__printf uses are done - on a separate line before the function

__latent_entropy
static void foo(...)