Re: [PATCH] scripts: checkpatch: Check block comments start with /* empty line outside net

[Alex Ghiti]

On 3/6/19 7:12 AM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Le 3/6/19 Ã 12:08 AM, Joe Perches a ÃcritÂ:
> > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:02 -0500, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > This patch ensures that apart from net code, block comments start 
> > > with an
> > > empty /* line.
> > I'm not sure it's useful to try to eliminate these types
> > of lines as there are ~20K of them in the kernel
> >
> > $ git grep -P "^\/\*\s*\S" | \
> > ÂÂ grep -v "\*/\s*$" | \
> > ÂÂ grep -vP "^(drivers/net|net/)" | \
> > ÂÂ grep -vP "\/\*\**$" | \
> > ÂÂ wc -l
> > 19437
>
>
> This is part of the coding style, some people rely on checkpatch for 
> this matter,
> so I think we should at least warn user, that would avoid patch bouncing.
>
>
> > Also, perhaps the code would be simpler using something like:
> > ---
> > Â scripts/checkpatch.pl | 11 +++++++++++
> > Â 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > index d0001fd1112d..c62dbd440c50 100755
> > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > @@ -3262,6 +3262,17 @@ sub process {
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "networking block comments don't use an empty /* 
> > line, use /* Comment...\n" . $hereprev);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
> > Â +# Block comments use an initial blank /* unless self contained 
> > single line
> > +# or a continuous header line like /**********************
> > +# This also allows for introductory kernel-doc /** lines
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if ($realfile !~ m@(?:drivers/net|net/)@ &&
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ $rawline =~ m@^\+\s*/\*(?:\s*\*++)?\s*\S@ &&
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ $rawline !~ m@\*/\s*$@ &&
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ $realline > 2) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ WARN("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "Block comments start with only /* on an otherwise 
> > blank line\n" . $herecurr);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
> > +
> > Â # Block comments use * on subsequent lines
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if ($prevline =~ /$;[ \t]*$/ && #ends in comment
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ $prevrawline =~ /^\+.*?\/\*/ && #starting /*
> Your version handles more cases, but why is it simpler ? Anyway, 
> that's ok for me
> if you prefer your version.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Alex

Hi Joe,

Can I do something more regarding this patch ?

Thanks,

Alex