From: Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block comment
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:26:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <654b3487-23a1-4766-4f42-73fa41fd7c9a@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1491386103.27353.78.camel@perches.com>
On 04/05/2017 11:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>> Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
>>>
>>> Hello Hugues
>>>
>>>> I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
>>>> the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
>>>> There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify that there
>>>> are no false positives, but I have checked the output carefully and
>>>> found 2 limit cases:
>>>>
>>>> 1) space character placed just after "/*"
>>>> WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
>>>> #330: FILE: arch/alpha/kernel/core_irongate.c:330:
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Check for within the AGP aperture...
>>>> => 146 hits (grep -c -n -E "\/\* $" /tmp/check.txt)
>>>>
>>>> 2) // style comment followed by pointer dereference
>>>> WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
>>>> #426: FILE: drivers/media/dvb-core/dvb_ca_en50221.c:426:
>>>> + // success
>>>> + *tupleType = _tupleType;
>>>> => 4 hits
>>>>
>>>> Anyway this reveal comment style related issues, so I would say that we
>>>> can keep script as it is, what do you think about ?
>>>
>>> Glancing at the output, there is also the comment
>>> in a multiline macro case:
>>>
>>> WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
>>> #354: FILE: arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h:354:
>>> + /* \
>>> + * Other stuff associated with the process \
>>>
>>> Dunno how common that is, but maybe the test
>>> should be changed to avoid those.
>>>
>>
>> Here is a proposal that remove this macro case:Per
>>
>> # Missing initial /*
>> if ($realfile !~ m@^(drivers/net/|net/)@ && #networking exception
>> $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]\/\**.+[ \t]/ && #start with /*...
>> $prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\*.*\*\/[ \t]*/ && #no inline /*...*/
>> + $prevrawline !~ /^\+[ \t]\/\*+[ \t]+\\$/ &&#no macro /*<tab><\>
>> $rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\*/ &&
>> $realline > 2) {
>
> Perhaps it's better to change this to
>
> $prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*.*\\$/
KO with this line, I suspect you meant "\s" instead of "." in above
expression, so I've changed to:
$prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*\s*\\$/
this one is OK
>
> Also perhaps the
> // foo
> *bar = baz;
>
> case could be avoided by adding tests for the
> comment character $; on $prevline and $line
> and not looking only at $prevrawline and $rawline.
>
Sorry for my poor understanding of the script but I don't catch what you
meant regarding "raw" and non "raw" variables, so I've done the job
simply by excluding the lines starting with "//":
$prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\/.*[ \t]*/ && #no inline //
Which gives finally:
# Missing initial /*
if ($realfile !~ m@^(drivers/net/|net/)@ && #networking exception
$prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]\/\**.+[ \t]/ && #start with /*...
$prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\*.*\*\/[ \t]*/ && #no inline /*...*/
+ $prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\/.*[ \t]*/ && #no inline //
+ $prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*\s*\\$/ && #no macro /*<whitespace><\>
$rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\*/ &&
$realline > 2) {
WARN("MISSING_INITIAL_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
"Block comments starts with an empty /*\n" . $hereprev);
}
BR,
Hugues.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-05 13:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-03 8:08 [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block comment Hugues Fruchet
2017-04-03 8:08 ` Hugues Fruchet
2017-04-03 19:06 ` Joe Perches
2017-04-05 8:23 ` Hugues FRUCHET
2017-04-05 8:35 ` Joe Perches
2017-04-05 9:43 ` Hugues FRUCHET
2017-04-05 9:55 ` Joe Perches
2017-04-05 13:26 ` Hugues FRUCHET [this message]
2017-04-07 9:56 ` Hugues FRUCHET
2017-04-07 10:22 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=654b3487-23a1-4766-4f42-73fa41fd7c9a@st.com \
--to=hugues.fruchet@st.com \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).