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

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

[Utkarsh Verma]

Added and documented 3 new message types:
- MULTILINE_DEREFERENCE
- SINGLE_STATEMENT_DO_WHILE_MACRO
- MULTIPLE_ASSIGNMENTS

Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
index f0956e9ea2d8..dac5b89a3082 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
@@ -710,6 +710,33 @@ Indentation and Line Breaks
 
     See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#breaking-long-lines-and-strings
 
+  **MULTILINE_DEREFERENCE**
+    A single dereferencing identifier spanned on multiple lines like::
+
+      struct_identifier->member[index].
+      member = <foo>;
+
+    is generally hard to follow. It can easily lead to typos and so makes
+    the code vulnerable to bugs.
+
+    If fixing the multiple line dereferencing leads to an 80 column
+    violation, then either rewrite the code in a more simple way or if the
+    starting part of the dereferencing identifier is the same and used at
+    multiple places then store it in a temporary variable, and use that
+    temporary variable only at all the places. For example, if there are
+    two dereferencing identifiers::
+
+      member1->member2->member3.foo1;
+      member1->member2->member3.foo2;
+
+    then store the member1->member2->member3 part in a temporary variable.
+    It not only helps to avoid the 80 column violation but also reduces
+    the program size by removing the unnecessary dereferences.
+
+    But if none of the above methods work then ignore the 80 column
+    violation because it is much easier to read a dereferencing identifier
+    on a single line.
+
   **TRAILING_STATEMENTS**
     Trailing statements (for example after any conditional) should be
     on the next line.
@@ -845,6 +872,17 @@ Macros, Attributes and Symbols
     Use the `fallthrough;` pseudo keyword instead of
     `/* fallthrough */` like comments.
 
+  **SINGLE_STATEMENT_DO_WHILE_MACRO**
+    For the multi-statement macros, it is necessary to use the do-while
+    loop to avoid unpredictable code paths. The do-while loop helps to
+    group the multiple statements into a single one so that a
+    function-like macro can be used as a function only.
+
+    But for the single statement macros, it is unnecessary to use the
+    do-while loop. Although the code is syntactically correct but using
+    the do-while loop is redundant. So remove the do-while loop for single
+    statement macros.
+
   **WEAK_DECLARATION**
     Using weak declarations like __attribute__((weak)) or __weak
     can have unintended link defects.  Avoid using them.
@@ -920,6 +958,11 @@ Functions and Variables
     Your compiler (or rather your loader) automatically does
     it for you.
 
+  **MULTIPLE_ASSIGNMENTS**
+    Multiple assignments on a single line makes the code unnecessarily
+    complicated. So on a single line assign value to a single variable
+    only, this makes the code more readable and helps avoid typos.
+
   **RETURN_PARENTHESES**
     return is not a function and as such doesn't need parentheses::
 
-- 
2.25.1

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

[Utkarsh Verma]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:53:05AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 11:43 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Added and documented 3 new message types:
> > > - UNNECESSARY_INT
> > > - UNSPECIFIED_INT
> > > - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> > 
> > So...when you send multiple patches with the same subject line that's
> > always a bad sign.  We really want a "git --oneline" listing to give a
> > good idea of what the patch does, and that depends on more descriptive
> > subject lines.
> > 
> > In this case, something like:
> > 
> >   docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> > 
> > I can fix up these two patches, but please try to keep this in mind for
> > future work.
> > 
> > (applying the patches now).
> 
> The unnecessary_else description isn't particularly good as the
> checkpatch output doesn't describe multiple if/else if/else if type
> returns where the message should not apply.
> 
> For this type of use, the checkpatch message is not necessarily correct
> and because it could be a patch context, there's no way for checkpatch
> to know if it's correct or not.
> 
> 	if (foo) {
> 		...
> 	} else if (bar) {
> 		...
> 		return [val];
> 	} else {
> 		...
> 	}
> 

Sorry, my bad. I have sent a new patch for the UNNECESSARY_ELSE test.
So please do review it.

Maybe we should add a check for the continue statement also, because it is
similar to the break and return statements, and using else after continue
statement is unnecessary.

Regards,
Utkarsh Verma

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

[Lukas Bulwahn]

Overall conclusion: Patch needs more work. So a NACK from my side.

Jonathan, could you drop this patch from your queue again? Sorry for
this inconvenience.

Further comments inline.

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 10:18 PM Utkarsh Verma
<utkarshverma294@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Added and documented 3 new message types:
> - UNNECESSARY_INT
> - UNSPECIFIED_INT
> - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
>
> Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> index f0956e9ea2d8..2dc74682277f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> @@ -929,6 +929,13 @@ Functions and Variables
>
>        return bar;
>
> +  **UNNECESSARY_INT**
> +    int used after short, long and long long is unnecessary. So remove it.
> +

This does not add significantly more explanation than what is already
there in the checkpatch warning without the --verbose option.

As we said multiple times before:
- A reference to documentation, mailing list thread, or (in this case)
even the section of the C standard helps. Then summarize that
discussion or the rationale you got from that documentation.
- Further, pointers to typical cases of false positives of this rule
also helps developers to judge if they should address the warning or
not.

> +  **UNSPECIFIED_INT**
> +    Kernel style prefers "unsigned int <foo>" over "unsigned <foo>" and
> +    "signed int <foo>" over "signed <foo>".
> +

Same comment as above.

>
>  Permissions
>  -----------
> @@ -1166,3 +1173,43 @@ Others
>
>    **TYPO_SPELLING**
>      Some words may have been misspelled.  Consider reviewing them.
> +
> +  **UNNECESSARY_ELSE**
> +    Using an else statement just after a return or a break statement is
> +    unnecassary. For example::

spelling mistake in unnecassary -> unnecessary.

> +
> +      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
> +              int foo = bar();
> +              if (foo < 1)
> +                      break;
> +              else
> +                      usleep(1);
> +      }
> +
> +    is generally better written as::
> +
> +      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
> +              int foo = bar();
> +              if (foo < 1)
> +                      break;
> +              usleep(1);
> +      }
> +
> +    So remove the else statement. But suppose if a if-else statement each
> +    with a single return statement, like::
> +
> +      if (foo)
> +              return bar;
> +      else
> +              return baz;
> +
> +    then by removing the else statement::
> +
> +      if (foo)
> +              return bar;
> +      return baz;
> +
> +    their is no significant increase in the readability and one can argue

s/their/there/

> +    that the first form is more readable because of indentation, so for
> +    such cases do not convert the existing code from first form to second
> +    form or vice-versa.

I am confused. So what is the recommendation the documentation is
providing here?

Lukas

> --
> 2.25.1
>

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

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 11:43 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Added and documented 3 new message types:
> > - UNNECESSARY_INT
> > - UNSPECIFIED_INT
> > - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> 
> So...when you send multiple patches with the same subject line that's
> always a bad sign.  We really want a "git --oneline" listing to give a
> good idea of what the patch does, and that depends on more descriptive
> subject lines.
> 
> In this case, something like:
> 
>   docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> 
> I can fix up these two patches, but please try to keep this in mind for
> future work.
> 
> (applying the patches now).

The unnecessary_else description isn't particularly good as the
checkpatch output doesn't describe multiple if/else if/else if type
returns where the message should not apply.

For this type of use, the checkpatch message is not necessarily correct
and because it could be a patch context, there's no way for checkpatch
to know if it's correct or not.

	if (foo) {
		...
	} else if (bar) {
		...
		return [val];
	} else {
		...
	}

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

[Utkarsh Verma]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:43:59AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Added and documented 3 new message types:
> > - UNNECESSARY_INT
> > - UNSPECIFIED_INT
> > - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> 
> So...when you send multiple patches with the same subject line that's
> always a bad sign.  We really want a "git --oneline" listing to give a
> good idea of what the patch does, and that depends on more descriptive
> subject lines.
> 
> In this case, something like:
> 
>   docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> 
> I can fix up these two patches, but please try to keep this in mind for
> future work.
> 

Alright, I will keep this in mind.

> (applying the patches now).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon

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

[Jonathan Corbet]

Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com> writes:

> Added and documented 3 new message types:
> - UNNECESSARY_INT
> - UNSPECIFIED_INT
> - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
>
> Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)

So...when you send multiple patches with the same subject line that's
always a bad sign.  We really want a "git --oneline" listing to give a
good idea of what the patch does, and that depends on more descriptive
subject lines.

In this case, something like:

  docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE

I can fix up these two patches, but please try to keep this in mind for
future work.

(applying the patches now).

Thanks,

jon

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

[Utkarsh Verma]

Added and documented 3 new message types:
- UNNECESSARY_INT
- UNSPECIFIED_INT
- UNNECESSARY_ELSE

Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
index f0956e9ea2d8..2dc74682277f 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
@@ -929,6 +929,13 @@ Functions and Variables
 
       return bar;
 
+  **UNNECESSARY_INT**
+    int used after short, long and long long is unnecessary. So remove it.
+
+  **UNSPECIFIED_INT**
+    Kernel style prefers "unsigned int <foo>" over "unsigned <foo>" and
+    "signed int <foo>" over "signed <foo>".
+
 
 Permissions
 -----------
@@ -1166,3 +1173,43 @@ Others
 
   **TYPO_SPELLING**
     Some words may have been misspelled.  Consider reviewing them.
+
+  **UNNECESSARY_ELSE**
+    Using an else statement just after a return or a break statement is
+    unnecassary. For example::
+
+      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+              int foo = bar();
+              if (foo < 1)
+                      break;
+              else
+                      usleep(1);
+      }
+
+    is generally better written as::
+
+      for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
+              int foo = bar();
+              if (foo < 1)
+                      break;
+              usleep(1);
+      }
+
+    So remove the else statement. But suppose if a if-else statement each
+    with a single return statement, like::
+
+      if (foo)
+              return bar;
+      else
+              return baz;
+
+    then by removing the else statement::
+
+      if (foo)
+              return bar;
+      return baz;
+
+    their is no significant increase in the readability and one can argue
+    that the first form is more readable because of indentation, so for
+    such cases do not convert the existing code from first form to second
+    form or vice-versa.
-- 
2.25.1

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

[Dwaipayan Ray]

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.

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

[Utkarsh Verma]

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