Re: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Document some more message types

[Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:46 PM Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Added and documented 4 new message types:
> - INCLUDE_LINUX
> - INDENTED_LABEL
> - IF_0
> - IF_1
>
> Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> index f0956e9ea2d8..ea343a7a5b46 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> @@ -435,6 +435,11 @@ API usage
>    **EXPORT_SYMBOL**
>      EXPORT_SYMBOL should immediately follow the symbol to be exported.
>
> +  **INCLUDE_LINUX**
> +    Whenever asm/file.h is included and linux/file.h exists, a
> +    conversion can be made when linux/file.h includes asm/file.h.
> +    However this is not always the case (See signal.h).
> +

Can you suggest why? And is this true for every use?

>    **IN_ATOMIC**
>      in_atomic() is not for driver use so any such use is reported as an ERROR.
>      Also in_atomic() is often used to determine if sleeping is permitted,
> @@ -661,6 +666,10 @@ Indentation and Line Breaks
>
>      See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1328311239.21255.24.camel@joe2Laptop/
>
> +  **INDENTED_LABEL**
> +    goto labels either should not have any indentation or only a single
> +    space indentation.
> +

Some reference here maybe?

>    **SWITCH_CASE_INDENT_LEVEL**
>      switch should be at the same indent as case.
>      Example::
> @@ -790,6 +799,19 @@ Macros, Attributes and Symbols
>    **DO_WHILE_MACRO_WITH_TRAILING_SEMICOLON**
>      do {} while(0) macros should not have a trailing semicolon.
>
> +  **IF_0**
> +    The code enclosed within #if 0 and #endif is not executed and is used
> +    for temporarily removing the segments of code with the intention of
> +    using it in the future, much like comments. But comments cannot be
> +    nested, so #if 0 is preferred. But if the code inside #if 0 and #endif
> +    doesn't seem to be anymore required then remove it.
> +
> +  **IF_1**
> +    The code enclosed within #if 1 and #endif is always executed, so the
> +    #if 1 and #endif statements are redundant, thus remove it.
> +    It is only useful for debugging purposes, it can quickly disable the
> +    code enclosed within itself by changing #if 1 to #if 0
> +

These two are good.

>    **INIT_ATTRIBUTE**
>      Const init definitions should use __initconst instead of
>      __initdata.
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Thanks,
Dwaipayan.