[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:10:47 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srv_heupstream@...iatek.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch: add Kconfig 'default n' test
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:43:15AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 13:10 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > If a Kconfig config option doesn't specify 'default', the default
> > will be n. Adding 'default n' is unnecessary.
> > Add a test to warn about this.
>
> Is it obvious that a Kconfig has "default n" ?
> This seems to work, but is this useful?
> > + if ($realfile =~ /Kconfig/ &&
> > + $line =~ /^\+\s*default\s*n\s*(#.*|$)/i) {
I wonder particually when the submitter has supplied a comment, presumably
to tell us why it defaults to 'n'. I feel more accepting of rejecting
uncommented ones than those with.
> > + WARN("CONFIG_DEFAULT_N",
> > + "Use of default n is unnecessary, default is n when omitted.\n" . $herecurr);
> > + }
> > +
> > if (($realfile =~ /Makefile.*/ || $realfile =~ /Kbuild.*/) &&
> > ($line =~ /\+(EXTRA_[A-Z]+FLAGS).*/)) {
> > my $flag = $1;
-apw
Powered by blists - more mailing lists