Re: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:01:00 +0200 (MEST) Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> 
> 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.

Ack, I added \b.  Thanks.

> 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?


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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/