Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:10:19 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: RFC: kernel coding style: prefer array to &array[0] ? |
| |
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> It seems most in-kernel uses are 'array' rather than '&array[0]' > > Most of the time, using array is simpler to read than &array[0]. > > Exceptions exists when addresses for consecutive members are > used like func(&array[0], &array[1]); > > Should this preference be put into checkpatch and/or CodingStyle?
&array[0] looks complicated to me.
julia
> Here's a possible checkpatch --strict addition > --- > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > index 90e1edc..362a9d8 100755 > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > @@ -5492,6 +5492,12 @@ sub process { > } > } > > +# check for address of array[0] (not '&& array[0]' or &array[0].member) > + if ($sline =~ /[^\&]&\s*($Ident\s*(?:(?:\-\>|\.)\s*$Ident\s*)*)\s*\[\s*0\s*\]\s*(?!\[|\.|\-\>)/) { > + CHK("ADDRESSOF_ARRAY", > + "Using addressof array '$1' index [0] may be simpler as '$1'\n" . $herecurr); > + } > + > # check for semaphores initialized locked > if ($line =~ /^.\s*sema_init.+,\W?0\W?\)/) { > WARN("CONSIDER_COMPLETION", > > >
| |