lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

On Apr 27 2007 22:58, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
>--- checkpatch.pl.orig 2007-04-27 20:30:34.000000000 -0700
>+++ checkpatch.pl 2007-04-27 22:54:42.000000000 -0700
>@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@
> $warnings += search(qr/kernel_thread\(/, "Use kthread abstraction instead of kernel_thread()\n");
> $warnings += search(qr/typedef/, "Do not add new typedefs.\n");
> $warnings += search(qr/uint32_t/, "Incorrect type usage for kernel code. Use __u32 etc.\n");
>- $warnings += search(qr/BUG(_ON)\(/, "Use WARN_ON & Recovery code rather than BUG() and BUG_ON()\n");
>+ $warnings += search(qr/(?<!BUILD_)BUG(_ON)\(/, "Use WARN_ON & Recovery code rather than BUG() and BUG_ON()\n");

I wonder what the capture is for?
(?<!BUILD_)BUG(?:_ON) if you ask me :)
But you could also use...
qr/\bBUG_ON\(/
which rules out a BUILD_BUG_ON, because _ does not constitute a word
boundary, since _ is in \w.

And since when is uint32_t wrong? What makes u32 or __u32 better?
We have sprintf, (k)asprintf, abs(), etc. etc. etc. tons of functions
named similar to their ISO C counterparts, but when it comes to types,
we make an exception?


Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-28 10:09    [W:0.136 / U:1.588 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site