Re: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

[Jan Engelhardt]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/