[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240108172256.48ebc777@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:22:56 -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 17:13:12 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 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)
Note that checkpatch is a guideline and not a rule. The general rule is, if
the code looks worse when applying the checkpatch rule, don't do it.
- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists