On 3/10/20 8:56 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > + jes > > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> On 3/5/20 10:10, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 16:50 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >>>>> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> [] >>>>>> drivers/net/wireless/zydas/zd1211rw/zd_usb.h | 8 ++++---- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> "zd1211rw: " is enough, no need to have the filename in the title. >>> >>>>> But I asked this already in an earlier patch, who prefers this format? >>>>> It already got opposition so I'm not sure what to do. >>>> >>>> I think it doesn't matter. >>>> >>>> Trivial inconsistencies in patch subject and word choice >>>> don't have much overall impact. >>> >>> I wrote in a confusing way, my question above was about the actual patch >>> and not the the title. For example, Jes didn't like this style change: >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11402315/ >>> >> >> It doesn't seem that that comment adds a lot to the conversation. The only >> thing that it says is literally "fix the compiler". By the way, more than >> a hundred patches have already been applied to linux-next[1] and he seems >> to be the only person that has commented such a thing. > > But I also asked who prefers this format in that thread, you should not > ignore questions from two maintainers (me and Jes). > I'm sorry. I thought the changelog text had already the proper information. In the changelog text I'm quoting the GCC documentation below: "The preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types like struct line above is the ISO C99 flexible array member..." [1] I'm also including a link to the following KSPP open issue: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 The issue above mentions the following: "Both cases (0-byte and 1-byte arrays) pose confusion for things like sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE." sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances may be hiding some bugs. So, the idea is also to get completely rid of those sorts of issues. Should I update the changelog in some way so it is a bit more informative? [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html Thanks -- Gustavo >> Qemu guys are adopting this format, too[2][3]. >> >> On the other hand, the changelog text explains the reasons why we are >> implementing this change all across the kernel tree. :) >> >> [1] >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/?qt=grep&q=flexible-array >> [2] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-s390x/2020-03/msg00019.html >> [3] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-s390x/2020-03/msg00020.html > > TBH I was leaning more on Jes side on this, but I guess these patches > are ok if they are so widely accepted. Unless anyone objects? >
