Re: [PATCH v4] scripts: checkpatch: warn on Rust panicking methods

[Gary Guo]

On Tue Feb 3, 2026 at 4:32 PM GMT, Onur Özkan wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:02:02 +0000
> "Gary Guo" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue Feb 3, 2026 at 3:49 PM GMT, Onur Özkan wrote:
>> > On Tue,  3 Feb 2026 08:25:41 -0700
>> > Jkhall81 <jason.kei.hall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nice, emails sent from gmail get automatically rejected.
>> >> 
>> >> So, Dirk.  To satisfy your concerns the current 10ish line
>> >> code update is going to slowly, after many more emails
>> >> written in nano, mutate into a franken-regex-perl beast. 
>> >> checkpatch.pl is already huge.  I'm not a fan of this 
>> >> approach.
>> >
>> > Me neither. I wonder why we are doing this instead of using the
>> > unwrap_used and expect_used linting rules from clippy. This would
>> > catch the problem much earlier than checkpath since many of us build
>> > the kernel with CLIPPY=1 flag.
>> 
>> Because it's okay to `panic` or use `expect`. checkpatch will just
>> warn you once when the code is introduced, not continuously in each
>> build.
>
> That's interesting because it implies that it's okay for people to use
> them without "// PANIC..." comments. That sounds problematic since it
> means some instances will have that comment while others may not.

My personal view has always been it's okay to not have it. It's a burden to
developers to always have to write these. In many cases, `panic()` or `expect()`
calls are needed because you have something of `Option<>` and you know it's not
going to be `None`. The C equivalent would just be a pointer and you use it
without checking for NULL; we never ask people to justify why they feel it's
okay to dereference a pointer.

Sure, if people would like to justify why they think it won't panic, brilliant,
keeping doing it. But I don't want to make it harder for people to write Rust
code compared to C.

>
> In my opinion, adding a clippy rule and using "#[allow(...)]" in the
> places where it's acceptable to use them makes more sense. This is at
> least more consistent and doesn't bloat the checkpatch file.

`#[allow()]` looks quite verbose, and also you cannot apply it everywhere (just
blocks or items).

Best,
Gary