[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240108171312.475190cf@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:13:12 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Trace Kernel
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing user_events: Simplify user_event_parse_field()
parsing
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 21:47:44 +0000
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > - len = str_has_prefix(field, "__rel_loc ");
> > - if (len)
> > - goto skip_next;
> > + if (!(len = str_has_prefix(field, "__data_loc unsigned ")) &&
> > + !(len = str_has_prefix(field, "__data_loc ")) &&
> > + !(len = str_has_prefix(field, "__rel_loc unsigned ")) &&
> > + !(len = str_has_prefix(field, "__rel_loc "))) {
> > + goto parse;
> > + }
>
> This now triggers a checkpatch error:
> ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
What a horrible message.
> #1184: FILE: kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c:1184:
> + if (!(len = str_has_prefix(field, "__data_loc unsigned ")) &&
>
> I personally prefer to keep these files fully checkpatch clean.
I've stopped using checkpatch years ago because I disagreed with so much it :-p
(Including this message)
> However, I did test these changes under the self-tests and it passed.
>
> Do they bug you that much? :)
No big deal if you prefer the other way. I was just doing an audit of
str_has_prefix() to see what code could be cleaned up that uses it, and I
found this code.
If you prefer to limit your code to "checkpatch clean", I'll leave it alone.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists