Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: Checkpatch errors that should be downgraded | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Thu, 02 Feb 2023 09:03:58 -0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 11:16 +0000, David Howells wrote: > In the trace headers, the following should probably be ignored: > > CHECK: Lines should not end with a '(' > #73: FILE: include/trace/events/rxrpc.h:1947: > + TP_STRUCT__entry( > > CHECK: Lines should not end with a '(' > #80: FILE: include/trace/events/rxrpc.h:1954: > + TP_fast_assign( > > as it's standard practice to bump the contents onto the next line for these > two macros.
trace has its own grammar. Might as well ignore all of it.
> Also checkpatch is wrong in giving this error: > > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses > #37: FILE: include/trace/events/rxrpc.h:425: > +#define rxrpc_sack_traces \ > + EM(rxrpc_sack_advance, "ADV") \ > + EM(rxrpc_sack_fill, "FIL") \ > + EM(rxrpc_sack_nack, "NAK") \ > + EM(rxrpc_sack_none, "---") \ > + E_(rxrpc_sack_oos, "OOS") > > as the contents, when found in a trace header, are going to be used to > generate a string table and maybe an enum. It's standard practice, so if it > could be ignored in trace headers or at least downgraded to a warning?
Don't care.
There are lots of weird macros that don't fit the typical uses like this not just for trace weirdness.
Maybe:
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index a2fc7d5561267..126a8d4c07ce0 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -3876,6 +3876,9 @@ sub process { } } +# trace include files use a completely different grammar/style + next if ($realfile =~ m{/trace/.*\.h$} || $realfile =~ m{trace\.h$}); + # check for assignments on the start of a line if ($sline =~ /^\+\s+($Assignment)[^=]/) { my $operator = $1;
| |