From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38416) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blyLH-0001Q7-JI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:10:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blyLB-0007uR-54 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:10:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45194) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blyLA-0007u2-P9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:10:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:10:28 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20160919131028.GR15201@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <1474285452-6166-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> <20160919123354.19908.48375@ex-std-node742.prod.rhcloud.com> <20160919124709.GP15201@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v1 0/8] Merge qcrypto 2016/09/19 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , Fam Zheng On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:01:59PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 September 2016 at 13:47, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:33:57AM -0700, no-reply@ec2-52-6-146-230.compute-1.amazonaws.com wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Your series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for > >> more information: > >> > >> Type: series > >> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v1 0/8] Merge qcrypto 2016/09/19 > >> Message-id: 1474285452-6166-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com > >> > >> === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN === > >> #!/bin/bash > >> > >> BASE=base > >> n=1 > >> total=$(git log --oneline $BASE.. | wc -l) > >> failed=0 > >> > >> # Useful git options > >> git config --local diff.renamelimit 0 > >> git config --local diff.renames True > >> > >> commits="$(git log --format=%H --reverse $BASE..)" > >> for c in $commits; do > >> echo "Checking PATCH $n/$total: $(git show --no-patch --format=%s $c)..." > >> if ! git show $c --format=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback -; then > >> failed=1 > >> echo > >> fi > >> n=$((n+1)) > >> done > >> > >> exit $failed > >> === TEST SCRIPT END === > >> > >> Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384 > >> Switched to a new branch 'test' > >> bdd8574 crypto: add trace points for TLS cert verification > >> a5218f2 crypto: support more hash algorithms for pbkdf > >> 4483f4e crypto: increase default pbkdf2 time for luks to 2 seconds > >> c75443a crypto: remove bogus /= 2 for pbkdf iterations > >> 61e0f1a crypto: use correct derived key size when timing pbkdf > >> 616fc7b crypto: clear out buffer after timing pbkdf algorithm > >> d4a7ad1 crypto: make PBKDF iterations configurable for LUKS format > >> f56a5e3 crypto: use uint64_t for pbkdf iteration count parameters > >> > >> === OUTPUT BEGIN === > >> Checking PATCH 1/8: crypto: use uint64_t for pbkdf iteration count parameters... > >> Checking PATCH 2/8: crypto: make PBKDF iterations configurable for LUKS format... > >> Checking PATCH 3/8: crypto: clear out buffer after timing pbkdf algorithm... > >> Checking PATCH 4/8: crypto: use correct derived key size when timing pbkdf... > >> Checking PATCH 5/8: crypto: remove bogus /= 2 for pbkdf iterations... > >> Checking PATCH 6/8: crypto: increase default pbkdf2 time for luks to 2 seconds... > >> Checking PATCH 7/8: crypto: support more hash algorithms for pbkdf... > >> ERROR: if this code is redundant consider removing it > >> #222: FILE: tests/test-crypto-pbkdf.c:332: > >> +#if 0 > >> > >> total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 194 lines checked > > > > Peter, FWIW, I know about this style check error and I'm intentionally > > ignoring it as I consider it a false positive. IMHO we should probably > > downgrade that style check to a WARNING, not an ERROR. The message itself > > is indicating that maintainers have discretion to ignore it and thus it > > shouldn't be an error. > > Well, I don't in general look at patchew complaints on pull > requests (we should probably make it stop sending them) on > the basis that the maintainer should have already done that > before accepting the patches. But in general I think that > "#if 0" should be an error because there's not really any > good reason for it. For instance in this case there's no > explanation anywhere in the file of why these particular > test cases are disabled or in what circumstances they might > ever in future be enabled. If there's a case for the code being > possibly enabled at compile time locally or in the future then > #if SOMETHING (like the #ifdef DEBUG checks) with some comment > explaining the situation; if there isn't then the code doesn't > need to be there at all. The data in the test file is a conversion of test data from cryptsetup. Some are disabled since we don't support the particular hash algorithms yet, but I've been enabling more, as in this patch series. IMHO the '#if 0' is appropriate as this is a marker for future todo items, and if I had deleted the code as suggested, then whoever adds the extra algorithms in the future will have to go and find the original test data, and do a data conversion of it again which is just a waste of their time. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|