Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scripts: checkpatch: Check block comments start with /* empty line outside net | From | Alex Ghiti <> | Date | Mon, 25 Mar 2019 03:08:11 -0400 |
| |
On 3/17/19 11:48 AM, Alex Ghiti wrote: > On 3/6/19 7:12 AM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: >> Le 3/6/19 à 12:08 AM, Joe Perches a écrit : >>> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:02 -0500, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: >>>> This patch ensures that apart from net code, block comments start >>>> with an >>>> empty /* line. >>> I'm not sure it's useful to try to eliminate these types >>> of lines as there are ~20K of them in the kernel >>> >>> $ git grep -P "^\/\*\s*\S" | \ >>> grep -v "\*/\s*$" | \ >>> grep -vP "^(drivers/net|net/)" | \ >>> grep -vP "\/\*\**$" | \ >>> wc -l >>> 19437 >> >> >> This is part of the coding style, some people rely on checkpatch for >> this matter, >> so I think we should at least warn user, that would avoid patch >> bouncing. >> >> >>> >>> Also, perhaps the code would be simpler using something like: >>> --- >>> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 11 +++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>> index d0001fd1112d..c62dbd440c50 100755 >>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >>> @@ -3262,6 +3262,17 @@ sub process { >>> "networking block comments don't use an empty /* >>> line, use /* Comment...\n" . $hereprev); >>> } >>> +# Block comments use an initial blank /* unless self contained >>> single line >>> +# or a continuous header line like /********************** >>> +# This also allows for introductory kernel-doc /** lines >>> + if ($realfile !~ m@(?:drivers/net|net/)@ && >>> + $rawline =~ m@^\+\s*/\*(?:\s*\*++)?\s*\S@ && >>> + $rawline !~ m@\*/\s*$@ && >>> + $realline > 2) { >>> + WARN("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE", >>> + "Block comments start with only /* on an otherwise >>> blank line\n" . $herecurr); >>> + } >>> + >>> # Block comments use * on subsequent lines >>> if ($prevline =~ /$;[ \t]*$/ && #ends in comment >>> $prevrawline =~ /^\+.*?\/\*/ && #starting /* >>> >>> >> Your version handles more cases, but why is it simpler ? Anyway, >> that's ok for me >> if you prefer your version. >> >> Thanks for your comments, >> >> Alex >> >> > > Hi Joe, > > Can I do something more regarding this patch ? > > Thanks, > > Alex > Hi,
Sorry for insisting, but do you consider this patch for inclusion ?
Thanks,
Alex
| |