linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tracepoint: add new `tcp:tcp_ca

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

Message-ID: <82771f1c-9659-4aaa-bded-62bef6082bf8@manjusaka.me>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:58:05 +0800
From:   Manjusaka <me@...jusaka.me>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, edumazet@...gle.com,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org,
        kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        ncardwell@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tracepoint: add new `tcp:tcp_ca_event` trace event

On 2023/8/16 23:02, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:09:06 +0800
> Manjusaka <me@...jusaka.me> wrote:
> 
>>> +# trace include files use a completely different grammar
>>> +		next if ($realfile =~ m{(?:include/trace/events/|/trace\.h$/)});
>>> +
>>>  # check multi-line statement indentation matches previous line
>>>  		if ($perl_version_ok &&
>>>  		    $prevline =~ /^\+([ \t]*)((?:$c90_Keywords(?:\s+if)\s*)|(?:$Declare\s*)?(?:$Ident|\(\s*\*\s*$Ident\s*\))\s*|(?:\*\s*)*$Lval\s*=\s*$Ident\s*)\(.*(\&\&|\|\||,)\s*$/) {
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> Actually, I'm not sure this is the checkpatch style issue or my code style issue.
>>
>> Seems wired.
> 
> The TRACE_EVENT() macro has its own style. I need to document it, and
> perhaps one day get checkpatch to understand it as well.
> 
> The TRACE_EVENT() typically looks like:
> 
> 
> TRACE_EVENT(name,
> 
> 	TP_PROTO(int arg1, struct foo *arg2, struct bar *arg3),
> 
> 	TP_ARGS(arg1, arg2, arg3),
> 
> 	TP_STRUCT__entry(
> 		__field(	int,		field1				)
> 		__array(	char,		mystring,	MYSTRLEN	)
> 		__string(	filename,	arg3->name			)
> 	),
> 
> 	TP_fast_assign(
> 		__entry->field1 = arg1;
> 		memcpy(__entry->mystring, arg2->string);
> 		__assign_str(filename, arg3->name);
> 	),
> 
> 	TP_printk("field1=%d mystring=%s filename=%s",
> 		__entry->field1, __entry->mystring, __get_str(filename))
> );
> 
> The TP_STRUCT__entry() should be considered more of a "struct" layout than
> a macro layout, and that's where checkpatch gets confused. The spacing
> makes it much easier to see the fields and their types.
> 
> -- Steve

Thanks for the explain!

So could I keep the current code without any code style change?

I think it would be a good idea to fix the checkpatch.pl script in another patch