lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage
    Date


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@perches.com]
    > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM
    > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>
    > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; apw@canonical.com; kernel-
    > hardening@lists.openwall.com
    > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage
    >
    > (Adding back the cc's)
    >
    > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
    > > <snip>
    > > > No worries.
    > > > No idea why it doesn't work for you.
    > > > Maybe the hand applying was somehow
    > > > faulty?
    > > >
    > > > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus'
    > > > tree, but it seems to work.
    > > >
    > > > (on -linux)
    > > >
    > > > $ patch -p1 < cp_vsp.diff
    > > > patching file scripts/checkpatch.pl
    > > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 5634 (offset -36 lines).
    > > >
    > > > $ cat t_block.c
    > > > {
    > > > MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
    > > >  "%pk",
    > > >  foo->boo);
    > > > }
    > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f t_block.c
    > > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
    > > > #2: FILE: t_block.c:2:
    > > > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
    > > > +  "%pk",
    > > > +  foo->boo);
    > > >
    > > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 lines checked
    > > >
    > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
    > > >       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
    > > >
    > > > t_block.c has style problems, please review.
    > > >
    > > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
    > > >       them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
    > >
    > >
    > > Applied. It works fine with your example (see attached
    > > 0001-tblock.patch) but it doesn't provide Output for me with
    > > 0002-drv-hack.patch (attached as well)
    > >
    > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0002-drv-hack.patch
    > > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked
    > >
    > > 0002-drv-hack.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
    > >
    > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tblock.patch
    > > WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need
    > updating?
    > > #13:
    > > new file mode 100644
    > >
    > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
    > > #19: FILE: t_block.c:2:
    > > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
    > > + "%pk",
    > > + foo->boo);
    > >
    > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 6 lines checked
    > >
    > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
    > > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
    > >
    > > 0001-tblock.patch has style problems, please review.
    > >
    > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
    > > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
    >
    > This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done on patches that add just a
    > single multi-line statement.
    >
    > Andrew? Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately for patch contexts
    > with a single multi-line statement?

    I'm for merging your patch as is, and then take up the fact that $stat is not working correctly
    as a separate change, does that seem reasonable?

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-02-16 00:50    [W:5.759 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site