From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751305AbcBCKuq (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:50:46 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:36670 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753255AbcBCKuj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:50:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:50:35 +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: <20160203105035.GB21257@gmail.com> References: <1454364428-494-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <1454364428-494-11-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160203103335.GA7310@gmail.com> <20160203104432.GA2597@codeblueprint.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160203104432.GA2597@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: > On Wed, 03 Feb, at 11:33:35AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * 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. > > Irrespective of which tool suggested this change, I think this patch > is an improvement because the GUIDs now match the format from the UEFI > spec, making checking for typos that much easier (yes, I've really had > to do that in the past). Hm, so the GUIDs are line-broken in the same fashion in the spec, after the third parameter? That's a strong reason indeed - and then the changelog and title should say that: 're-format GUID tables to follow the format of the UEFI spec'. That it also pacifies checkpatch is a side effect. Thanks, Ingo