Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes

From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	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
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 17:00:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202110011659.F4F81D4196@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdm37zpJZkLvbHvVkXax=XGQ-Ym3iPfx7LtTUnZhADnYCA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:58 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> 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 <keescook@chromium.org>
> 
> 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