[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080514005325.765178fc@ephemeral>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 00:53:25 -0400
From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
rdunlap@...otime.net, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com
Subject: [PATCH] checkpatch: update the 80-char-line check to allow for long
strings
19:29 * dilinger sends his patch to lkml for a proper flaming
19:32 Quozl> dilinger: it's called "patch hardening"? ;-} the heat
of the flames makes the patch stronger.
I've wasted too much time massaging printk strings in order to satisfy
checkpatch.pl. Comments on this?
From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ian.org>
Checkpatch.pl is pretty strict in its lines-must-be-less-than-80-chars
check. I consider this a good thing in most scenarios; however,
when it comes to strings, I don't consider the following to be readable:
printk(KERN_WARNING
"one two three "
"fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo\n");
CodingStyle backs me up on this (if I'm interpreting that section clearly).
Ingo[0] has also pointed out why this might be a bad thing as well.
This patch is an attempt to make checkpatch.pl more useful. Folks ignore
long string warnings[1], which is bad form; we don't _want_ people getting
used to ignoring checkpatch.pl warnings any more than we want people
getting used to ignoring compiler warnings.
The patch updates checkpatch.pl to ignore lines that are > 80 chars
if they contain only (quoted) strings and perhaps some additional stuff
at the end. For example, the following no longer has warnings emitted:
+ printk(KERN_WARNING
+ "one two three fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo\n");
+ printk(KERN_WARNING
+ "one two three fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo\n",
+ xyz);
However, the following still triggers checkpatch.pl warnings:
+ printk(KERN_WARNING "one two three fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo\n");
+ printk(KERN_WARNING
+ "one two three foooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo\n", xyz);
I'm sure it's possible to fool the check, but we're not trying to guard
against malicious patch authors.
[0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/679732/focus=679760
[1] http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/014121.html
Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ian.org>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index b6bbbcd..00f3d05 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ sub process {
ERROR("trailing whitespace\n" . $herevet);
}
#80 column limit
- if ($line =~ /^\+/ && !($prevrawline=~/\/\*\*/) && $length > 80) {
+ if ($line =~ /^\+/ && !($prevrawline=~/\/\*\*/) && !($line =~ /^\+\s*"/ && $line =~ /"[);,\s]*$/) && $length > 80) {
WARN("line over 80 characters\n" . $herecurr);
}
--
1.5.5.1
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists