Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

[Joe Perches]

(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?
From 00191661141fb11abac22efe98ee58d37a9d9391 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: William Roberts <william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:35:03 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] drv hack

Signed-off-by: William Roberts <william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/char/applicom.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/char/applicom.c b/drivers/char/applicom.c
index e5c62dc..4f6934d 100644
--- a/drivers/char/applicom.c
+++ b/drivers/char/applicom.c
@@ -153,6 +153,10 @@ static int ac_register_board(unsigned long physloc, void __iomem *loc,
 		return 0;
 	}

+	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
+		"%pk",
+		foo->boo);
+
 	boardno--;
 
 	apbs[boardno].PhysIO = physloc;
-- 
2.7.4