netdev - 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]

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:09:06 +0800
From: Manjusaka <me@...jusaka.me>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: 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 2023/8/13 10:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-08-12 at 21:53 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 18:17:17 -0700
>> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I forgot to say "for TRACE_EVENT() macros". This is not about what
>>>> checkpatch says about other code.  
>>>
>>> trace has its own code style and checkpatch needs another
>>> parsing mechanism just for it, including the alignment to
>>> open parenthesis test.
>>
>> If you have a template patch to add the parsing mechanism, I'd be happy
>> to try to fill in the style.
> 
> There is no checkpatch mechanism per se.  It's all ad-hoc.
> 
> Perhaps something like this though would work well enough
> as it just avoids all the other spacing checks and such.
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 528f619520eb9..3017f4dd09fd2 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -3947,6 +3947,9 @@ sub process {
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> +# 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.