%llx tends to be wrong when used for fixed size, like uint64_t, variables, adding a warning to double check them. Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> --- Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> --- devtools/checkpatches.sh | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/devtools/checkpatches.sh b/devtools/checkpatches.sh index 78a408ef9823..68005389820a 100755 --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh @@ -118,6 +118,14 @@ check_forbidden_additions() { # <patch> -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ "$1" || res=1 + # check %llx usage + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \ + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \ + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ + -v MESSAGE='Please check %llx usage which tends to be wrong most of the times' \ + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ + "$1" || res=1 + # svg figures must be included with wildcard extension # because of png conversion for pdf docs awk -v FOLDERS='doc' \ -- 2.29.2
09/02/2021 16:26, Ferruh Yigit: > %llx tends to be wrong when used for fixed size, like uint64_t, > variables, adding a warning to double check them. > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> > --- > + # check %llx usage > + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \ > + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \ > + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ > + -v MESSAGE='Please check %llx usage which tends to be wrong most of the times' \ +1 It reminds me this old email: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-February/091483.html The title mentions llx, but it should be %ll in general: devtools: check %ll format specifier
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t. A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake. Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> --- v2: proposal to reword the message and comment --- devtools/checkpatches.sh | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/devtools/checkpatches.sh b/devtools/checkpatches.sh index db4c7d8301..0e09b2cab8 100755 --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh @@ -69,6 +69,14 @@ check_forbidden_additions() { # <patch> -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ "$1" || res=1 + # check %l or %ll format specifier + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \ + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \ + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ + -v MESSAGE='Using %l format, should it be %PRI*64?' \ + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ + "$1" || res=1 + # forbid variable declaration inside "for" loop awk -v FOLDERS='.' \ -v EXPRESSIONS='for[[:space:]]*\\((char|u?int|unsigned|s?size_t)' \ -- 2.31.1
On 5/19/2021 8:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>
> %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform
> if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t.
> A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> ---
> v2: proposal to reword the message and comment
> ---
> devtools/checkpatches.sh | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/devtools/checkpatches.sh b/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> index db4c7d8301..0e09b2cab8 100755
> --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> @@ -69,6 +69,14 @@ check_forbidden_additions() { # <patch>
> -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \
> "$1" || res=1
>
> + # check %l or %ll format specifier
> + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \
> + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \
> + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \
> + -v MESSAGE='Using %l format, should it be %PRI*64?' \
> + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \
> + "$1" || res=1
> +
> # forbid variable declaration inside "for" loop
> awk -v FOLDERS='.' \
> -v EXPRESSIONS='for[[:space:]]*\\((char|u?int|unsigned|s?size_t)' \
>
Using the %l or %ll format specifier is correct when the variable type is "long
int" or "long long int", it is only wrong if the variable type is fixed size
like 'unit64_t'.
My concern is above warning log may cause people change the correct usage.
That was why I tried to make wording less strict, more like a reminder to double
check the usage.
If we can check that format specifier is used for 'unit64_t' variable, that will
be the best solution but that is very hard to do.
Should we add a little more information to the message to prevent false hit on
the correct usage?
21/05/2021 14:01, Ferruh Yigit: > On 5/19/2021 8:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> > > > > %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform > > if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t. > > A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> > > --- > > v2: proposal to reword the message and comment > > --- > > + # check %l or %ll format specifier > > + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \ > > + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \ > > + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ > > + -v MESSAGE='Using %l format, should it be %PRI*64?' \ > > + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ > > + "$1" || res=1 > > Using the %l or %ll format specifier is correct when the variable type is "long > int" or "long long int", it is only wrong if the variable type is fixed size > like 'unit64_t'. > > My concern is above warning log may cause people change the correct usage. > > That was why I tried to make wording less strict, more like a reminder to double > check the usage. This is a question now: "should it be", why do you think it is strict? > If we can check that format specifier is used for 'unit64_t' variable, that will > be the best solution but that is very hard to do. > Should we add a little more information to the message to prevent false hit on > the correct usage? Your message was: "Please check %llx usage which tends to be wrong most of the times" Mine: "Using %l format, should it be %PRI*64?" Trying to give more info about what can be wrong while keeping short: "Using %l format, is it a long variable or should it be %PRI*64?
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t. A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake. Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> --- v3: more explicit message v2: proposal to reword the message and comment --- devtools/checkpatches.sh | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/devtools/checkpatches.sh b/devtools/checkpatches.sh index ba43f84e64..c30dadd962 100755 --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh @@ -69,6 +69,14 @@ check_forbidden_additions() { # <patch> -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ "$1" || res=1 + # check %l or %ll format specifier + awk -v FOLDERS='lib drivers app examples' \ + -v EXPRESSIONS='%ll*[xud]' \ + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ + -v MESSAGE='Using %l format, prefer %PRI*64 if type is [u]int64_t' \ + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \ + "$1" || res=1 + # forbid variable declaration inside "for" loop awk -v FOLDERS='.' \ -v EXPRESSIONS='for[[:space:]]*\\((char|u?int|unsigned|s?size_t)' \ -- 2.31.1
On 5/21/2021 2:30 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>
> %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform
> if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t.
> A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Ack.
Thanks for update.
21/05/2021 15:33, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 5/21/2021 2:30 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >
> > %lx or %llx tend to be wrong for 32-bit platform
> > if used for fixed size variable like uint64_t.
> > A checkpatch warning will avoid this common mistake.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>
> Ack.
>
> Thanks for update.
Applied, thanks