linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add an exclusion for 'for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:06:04 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC:	rdunlap@...otime.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add an exclusion for 'for_each' helper macros

Joel Schopp wrote:
> 
> Dan Williams wrote:
>> checkpatch currently complains about macros like the following:
>>
>> #define for_each_dma_cap_mask(cap, mask) \
>>     for ((cap) = first_dma_cap(mask);       \
>>         (cap) < DMA_TX_TYPE_END;        \
>>         (cap) = next_dma_cap((cap), (mask)))
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> 
> I'd like it if this patch updated Chapter 12 of
> Documentation/CodingStyle as well. That section is where the rule to
> check came from and it would be nice for it to mention the exception to
> the rule as well.
> 
> 
> 

The actual restriction is on statements not on lines it seems:

"Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while block"

So if this is only a single statement it is safe without a "container".
 I have a patch cooked up here which works out if there are more than
one statement which seems to do the trick.

Dan, thanks for the report.

-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/