Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Ignore ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_ enum values | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:52:38 -0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2022-12-30 at 22:15 +0100, Gerhard Engleder wrote: > On 30.12.22 21:31, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-12-30 at 20:59 +0100, Gerhard Engleder wrote: > > > Since commit 4104a20646 enum values like > > > ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_Asym_Pause_BIT are ignored. But there are other enums > > > like ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_1000baseT_Full_BIT, which are not ignored > > > because of the not matching '1000baseT' substring. > > > > > > Extend regex to match also substrings like '1000baseT'. > > [] > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > [] > > > @@ -5780,7 +5780,7 @@ sub process { > > > if ($var !~ /^$Constant$/ && > > > $var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ && > > > #Ignore some autogenerated defines and enum values > > > - $var !~ /^(?:[A-Z]+_){1,5}[A-Z]{1,3}[a-z]/ && > > > + $var !~ /^(?:[A-Z]+_){1,5}([A-Z]{1,3}[a-z]|[0-9]+[a-z]+[A-Z])/ && > > > > NAK. > > > > This introduces an unnecessary capture group and as well it would also > > allow too many other variants that should get a warning. > > A more exact link mode regex [0-9]+base[A-Z0-9]+_(Half|Full) would > eliminate unwanted matches. Shall I extend the existing regex or > would a separate regex with comment be the better choice?
Maybe $var !~ /^ETHTOOL_/
| |