Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging message | From | Marion & Christophe JAILLET <> | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2020 22:19:17 +0200 |
| |
Le 08/04/2020 à 02:33, Joe Perches a écrit : > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 22:49 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote: >> Strings logged with pr_xxx and dev_xxx often lack a trailing '\n'. >> Introduce new tests to try to catch them early. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> >> --- >> This is more a PoC for now. >> >> Regex could be improved, merged, ... >> We could also check for surrounding pr_cont... >> >> This patch is based on idea from [1]. coccinelle spots too many places >> where \n are missing (~ 2800 with the heuristic I've used). >> Fixing them would be painful. >> I instead propose to teach checkpatch.pl about it to try to spot cases >> early and avoid introducing new cases. >> >> [1]: https://marc.info/?l=kernel-janitors&m=158619533629657&w=4 >> --- >> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 10 ++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> index c392ab8ea12e..792804bd6ad9 100755 >> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> @@ -5676,6 +5676,16 @@ sub process { >> } >> } >> >> +# check for missing \n at the end of logging function >> + if ($line =~ /\bpr_(emerg|alert|crit|err|warning|warn|notice|info|debug|dbg)\s*\("([^"]*(?<!\\n))"/) { >> + WARN("MISSING NL", >> + "Possible missing '\\n' at the end of a log message\n" . $hereprev); >> + } >> + if ($line =~ /\bdev_(emerg|alert|crit|err|warning|warn|notice|info|debug|dbg)\s*\([^,]*,\s*"([^"]*(?<!\\n))"/) { >> + WARN("MISSING NL", >> + "Possible missing '\\n' at the end of a log message\n" . $hereprev); >> + } > This can't work as string is masked to "XXX"
Ok. I wasn't aware of that.
I tested the regex with regex101.org and only tested with patches that trigger the checkpatch.pl test, and it worked fine for me. I didn't test with string with trailing \n, that should NOT trigger the test. I should have! :(
> This is probably better using $stat and checking if a "XX" format > string exists as 1st or 2nd arg and adding an extraction > from the $rawline equivalent and checking that. > > Also this test should probably using $logFunctions and check > if the initial block is one of the known functions that > use a newline termination (pr_|dev_|netdev_|wiphy_)
Agreed but your perl and regex is much more fluent than mine. ;-)
CJ
| |