On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:01:59PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 September 2016 at 13:47, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:33:57AM -0700, > > no-re...@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-berra...@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 :|
