linux-kernel - checkpatch doesn't recognize register or volatile declarations (was Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: ralink-gdma: Move blank line to fix warning)

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 02 Apr 2020 20:10:57 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: checkpatch doesn't recognize register or volatile declarations (was
 Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: ralink-gdma: Move blank line to fix
 warning)

(adding lkml)

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 18:21 -0700, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:31 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, John B. Wyatt IV wrote:
> > 
> > > Move a blank line within a struct to fix/silence a style warning.
> > > 
> > > Reported by checkpatch.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: John B. Wyatt IV <jbwyatt4@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > Note:
> > > ralink-gdma does not build; even with make allyesconfig.
> > > I did not find a menu option with make menuconfig.
> > > 
> > >  drivers/staging/ralink-gdma/ralink-gdma.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ralink-gdma/ralink-gdma.c
> > > b/drivers/staging/ralink-gdma/ralink-gdma.c
> > > index eabf1093328e..9c398048daac 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/ralink-gdma/ralink-gdma.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ralink-gdma/ralink-gdma.c
> > > @@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ struct gdma_dma_dev {
> > >  	struct gdma_data *data;
> > >  	void __iomem *base;
> > >  	struct tasklet_struct task;
> > > +
> > 
> > Adding a blank line here is not correct. checkpatch is confused. 
> 
> It is not, but I was unsure of how this should be addressed. Thank you
> for letting me know.
> 
> The second version of the patch removes the blank line.
> 
> > Perhaps
> > it lacks a pattern considering wolatile to indicate a type.
> 
> I have CC'ed Joe Perches on this.
> 

Well, perhaps this, but it might cause other undesired change.
I haven't tested it much.

Maybe for older c, this list should even include "auto" too.

btw: the linux kernel sources do not have a single instance of
     auto as far as I can tell with a trivial search.

---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index d64c67..e906a8 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -372,6 +372,8 @@ our $InitAttribute = qr{$InitAttributeData|$InitAttributeConst|$InitAttributeIni
 # We need \b after 'init' otherwise 'initconst' will cause a false positive in a check
 our $Attribute	= qr{
 			const|
+			volatile|
+			register|
 			__percpu|
 			__nocast|
 			__safe|