Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging message

[Marion & Christophe JAILLET]

Le 08/04/2020 Ã 04:14, Joe Perches a ÃcritÂ:
> This works rather better:
>
> Perhaps you could test?
> ---
>
> v2:
>
> o Avoid pr_cont
> o Use only last format line if split across multiple lines
>
>   scripts/checkpatch.pl | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index d64c67..f00a6c8 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -5673,6 +5673,28 @@ sub process {
>   			}
>   		}
>   
> +# check for possible missing newlines at the end of common logging functions
> +		if (defined($stat) &&
> +		    $stat =~ /^\+\s*($logFunctions)\s*\((?:\s*$FuncArg\s*,\s*){0,3}\s*$String/ &&
> +		    $1 !~ /_cont$/ && $1 =~ /^(?:pr|dev|netdev|netif|wiphy)_/) {
> +			my $cnt = statement_rawlines($stat);
> +			my $extracted_string = "";
> +			for (my $i = 0; $i < $cnt; $i++) {
> +				next if ($lines[$linenr + $i - 1] !~ /$String\s*[,\)]/);
> +				$extracted_string = get_quoted_string($lines[$linenr + $i - 1],
> +								      $rawlines[$linenr + $i - 1]);
> +				last if ($extracted_string ne "");
> +			}
> +			if ($extracted_string ne "" && $extracted_string !~ /\\n"$/) {
> +				my $herectx = $here . "\n";
> +				for (my $n = 0; $n < $cnt; $n++) {
> +					$herectx .=  raw_line($linenr, $n) . "\n";
> +				}
> +				WARN("MISSING_FORMAT_NEWLINE",
> +				     "Possible missing '\\n' at the end of a logging message format string\n" . $herectx);
> +			}
> +		}
> +
>   # check for logging functions with KERN_<LEVEL>
>   		if ($line !~ /printk(?:_ratelimited|_once)?\s*\(/ &&
>   		    $line =~ /\b$logFunctions\s*\(.*\b(KERN_[A-Z]+)\b/) {
For what I wanted to check and according to the few tests I've made, it 
looks fine.

Thank you very much for sharing this much more robust (and working) 
alternative.

For what it worth: (i.e. much more tests should be done)
Tested-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>

Maybe, at least a Suggested-By: would be appreciated.

CJ