[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <654b3487-23a1-4766-4f42-73fa41fd7c9a@st.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:26:48 +0000
From: Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@...com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block
comment
On 04/05/2017 11:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>> Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
>>>
>>> Hello Hugues
>>>
>>>> I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
>>>> the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
>>>> There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify that there
>>>> are no false positives, but I have checked the output carefully and
>>>> found 2 limit cases:
>>>>
>>>> 1) space character placed just after "/*"
>>>> WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
>>>> #330: FILE: arch/alpha/kernel/core_irongate.c:330:
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Check for within the AGP aperture...
>>>> => 146 hits (grep -c -n -E "\/\* $" /tmp/check.txt)
>>>>
>>>> 2) // style comment followed by pointer dereference
>>>> WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
>>>> #426: FILE: drivers/media/dvb-core/dvb_ca_en50221.c:426:
>>>> + // success
>>>> + *tupleType = _tupleType;
>>>> => 4 hits
>>>>
>>>> Anyway this reveal comment style related issues, so I would say that we
>>>> can keep script as it is, what do you think about ?
>>>
>>> Glancing at the output, there is also the comment
>>> in a multiline macro case:
>>>
>>> WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
>>> #354: FILE: arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h:354:
>>> + /* \
>>> + * Other stuff associated with the process \
>>>
>>> Dunno how common that is, but maybe the test
>>> should be changed to avoid those.
>>>
>>
>> Here is a proposal that remove this macro case:Per
>>
>> # Missing initial /*
>> if ($realfile !~ m@^(drivers/net/|net/)@ && #networking exception
>> $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]\/\**.+[ \t]/ && #start with /*...
>> $prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\*.*\*\/[ \t]*/ && #no inline /*...*/
>> + $prevrawline !~ /^\+[ \t]\/\*+[ \t]+\\$/ &&#no macro /*<tab><\>
>> $rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\*/ &&
>> $realline > 2) {
>
> Perhaps it's better to change this to
>
> $prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*.*\\$/
KO with this line, I suspect you meant "\s" instead of "." in above
expression, so I've changed to:
$prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*\s*\\$/
this one is OK
>
> Also perhaps the
> // foo
> *bar = baz;
>
> case could be avoided by adding tests for the
> comment character $; on $prevline and $line
> and not looking only at $prevrawline and $rawline.
>
Sorry for my poor understanding of the script but I don't catch what you
meant regarding "raw" and non "raw" variables, so I've done the job
simply by excluding the lines starting with "//":
$prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\/.*[ \t]*/ && #no inline //
Which gives finally:
# Missing initial /*
if ($realfile !~ m@^(drivers/net/|net/)@ && #networking exception
$prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]\/\**.+[ \t]/ && #start with /*...
$prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\*.*\*\/[ \t]*/ && #no inline /*...*/
+ $prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\/.*[ \t]*/ && #no inline //
+ $prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*\s*\\$/ && #no macro /*<whitespace><\>
$rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\*/ &&
$realline > 2) {
WARN("MISSING_INITIAL_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
"Block comments starts with an empty /*\n" . $hereprev);
}
BR,
Hugues.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists