Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] checkpatch: check for nested (un)?likely() calls | From | Denis Efremov <> | Date | Sat, 31 Aug 2019 18:54:12 +0300 |
| |
On 31.08.2019 12:15, Markus Elfring wrote: >> +# nested likely/unlikely calls >> + if ($line =~ /\b(?:(?:un)?likely)\s*\(\s*!?\s*(IS_ERR(?:_OR_NULL|_VALUE)?|WARN)/) { >> + WARN("LIKELY_MISUSE", > > How do you think about to use the specification “(?:IS_ERR(?:_(?:OR_NULL|VALUE))?|WARN)” > in this regular expression?
Hmm, (?: <- Catch group is required here, since it is used in diagnostic message, see $1 IS_ERR (?:_ <- Another atomic group just to show that '_' is a common prefix? I'm not sure about this. Usually, Perl interpreter is very good at optimizing such things. You could see this optimization if you run perl with -Mre=debug. (?:OR_NULL|VALUE))?|WARN)
Regards, Denis
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |