Messages in this thread | | | Subject | checkpatch: Question regarding asmlinkage and storage class | From | Paul Menzel <> | Date | Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:15:38 +0100 |
| |
Dear checkpatch developers,
The coreboot project started using checkpatch.pl, and now some effort is going into fixing issues pointed out by `checkpatch.pl`.
The file `src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c` in coreboot contains the code below.
``` 205 void (*acpi_do_wakeup)(uintptr_t vector, u32 backup_source, u32 backup_target, 206 u32 backup_size) asmlinkage = (void *)WAKEUP_BASE; ```
The warning is
> WARNING: storage class should be at the beginning of the declaration
which raised the question below [2].
> And I am waiting for someone to answer why checkpatch.pl claims > asmlinkage as a storage-class in the first place.
In coreboot the macro is defined similarly to Linux.
``` #define asmlinkage __attribute__((regparm(0))) #define alwaysinline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) ```
In Linux, commit 9c0ca6f9 (update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10) seems to have introduced the check. The commit message contains “asmlinkage is also a storage type”.
Furthermore, `checkpatch.pl` doesn’t seem to warn about the code below.
``` void __attribute__((weak)) mainboard_suspend_resume(void) ```
This raises the question below.
> It appears coreboot proper mostly followed this placement for > function attributes before. It would be nice if we were consistent, > specially if checkpatch starts to complaint about these.
Is there another reason, besides not having that implemented?
I am looking forward to your answers.
Kind regards,
Paul
[1] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/18865/1/src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c@205 [2] https://review.coreboot.org/18865/ [3] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/18865/1/src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c@244[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |