Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] checkkconfigsymbols.sh: reimplementation in python | From | Paul Bolle <> | Date | Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:24:09 +0200 |
| |
Hi Valentin,
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 09:43 +0200, Valentin Rothberg wrote: > On dim., 2014-09-21 at 23:28 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > Valentin Rothberg schreef op zo 21-09-2014 om 21:53 [+0200]: > > > Furthermore, it generates false positives (4 of 526 in v3.17-rc1). > > > > Curiosity: what are those four false positives? > > 1) /arch/cris/kernel/module.c: ETRAX_KMALLOCED_MODULES (defined in > arch/cris/Kconfig)
This probably because symb_bare=`echo $symb | sed -e 's/_MODULE//'`
in the shell script you removed should read (something untested like): symb_bare=`echo $symb | sed -e 's/_MODULE$//'`
> 2) ./lib/Makefile: TEST_MODULE (defined in lib/Kconfig.debug)
TEST_MODULE is an awkward name for a Kconfig symbol. My local script has it special cased.
> 3,4) ./include/linux/module.h, ./kernel/module.c: DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX > (defined in arch/{s390,arm,x86}/Kconfig.debug)
See above.
> > > This patch replaces the shell script with an implementation in Python, > > > which: > > > (a) detects the same bugs, but does not report false positives > > > > Depends a bit on the definition of false positives. Ie, the hit for > > ./arch/sh/kernel/head_64.S: CACHE_ > > > > is caused by > > #error preprocessor flag CONFIG_CACHE_... not recognized! > > > > Should that line, and similar lines, be changed? > > I consider a false positive to actually be defined in Kconfig. The > feature in your example does not really apply to the naming convention > of Kconfig features ("..."), so that our regex does not match it.
But your python script does report it, doesn't it?
> However, the regex matches "CONFIG_X86_". I shall change the regex to > not accept strings ending with "_", so that such cases are not reported.
> > > +# REGEX EXPRESSIONS > > > +OPERATORS = r"&|\(|\)|\||\!" > > > +FEATURE = r"\w*[A-Z]{1}\w*" > > > +FEATURE_DEF = r"^\s*(menu){,1}config\s+" + FEATURE + r"\s*" > > > +EXPR = r"(" + OPERATORS + r"|\s|" + FEATURE + r")*" > > > +STMT = r"^\s*(if|select|depends\s+on)\s+" + EXPR > > > > "depends on" with multiple spaces? > > > + > > > +# REGEX OBJECTS > > > +REGEX_FILE_KCONFIG = re.compile(r"Kconfig[\.\w+\-]*$") > > > +REGEX_FILE_SOURCE = re.compile(r"\.[cSh]$")
New observation: this causes the script to skip text files, shell scripts, etc, doesn't it?
> > > +REGEX_FILE_MAKE = re.compile(r"Makefile|Kbuild[\.\w+]*$") > > > +REGEX_FEATURE = re.compile(r"(" + FEATURE + r")") > > > +REGEX_FEATURE_DEF = re.compile(FEATURE_DEF) > > > +REGEX_CPP_FEATURE = re.compile(r"\W+CONFIG_(" + FEATURE + r")[.]*") > > > > There are a few uses of "-DCONFIG_[...]" in Makefiles. This will miss > > those, won't it? That's not bad, per se, but a comment why you're > > skipping those might be nice. Or are those caught too, somewhere else? > > I was not aware of such uses, thanks. It seems important to cover them > too. Does this prefix has a certain purpose?
It is, in short, a way to define preprocessor macros from the GCC command line (see info gcc).
> > > +REGEX_KCONFIG_EXPR = re.compile(EXPR) > > > +REGEX_KCONFIG_STMT = re.compile(STMT) > > > +REGEX_KCONFIG_HELP = re.compile(r"^[\s|-]*help[\s|-]*") > > > > Won't "^\s\+(---help---|help)$" do? Might help catch creative variants > > of the help statement (we had a few in the past). > > Yes, your regex is more robust. Thanks!
But it seems I should not have escaped the plus. Please check.
Paul Bolle
| |