From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754537AbcBCKdm (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:33:42 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:35044 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752830AbcBCKdj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:33:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:33:35 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Matt Fleming Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Jones , Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions Message-ID: <20160203103335.GA7310@gmail.com> References: <1454364428-494-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <1454364428-494-11-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1454364428-494-11-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Matt Fleming wrote: > From: Peter Jones > > This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if > you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about > it. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming > --- > include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644 > --- a/include/linux/efi.h > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h > @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void); > * EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions > */ > #define NULL_GUID \ > - EFI_GUID( 0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 ) > + EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \ > + 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00) > > #define MPS_TABLE_GUID \ > - EFI_GUID( 0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d ) > + EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \ > + 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d) So I really think this is a step backwards. Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like: #define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE ... #undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE ... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly. Thanks, Ingo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20160203103335.GA7310@gmail.com> References: <1454364428-494-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <1454364428-494-11-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1454364428-494-11-git-send-email-matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peter Jones , Ard Biesheuvel List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org * Matt Fleming wrote: > From: Peter Jones > > This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if > you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about > it. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming > --- > include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644 > --- a/include/linux/efi.h > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h > @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void); > * EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions > */ > #define NULL_GUID \ > - EFI_GUID( 0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 ) > + EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \ > + 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00) > > #define MPS_TABLE_GUID \ > - EFI_GUID( 0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d ) > + EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \ > + 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d) So I really think this is a step backwards. Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like: #define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE ... #undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE ... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly. Thanks, Ingo