From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C9DC433ED for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 09:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE03961A24 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 09:48:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233858AbhETJtB (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 05:49:01 -0400 Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.25]:59393 "EHLO wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232109AbhETJqc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 05:46:32 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D281CD2; Thu, 20 May 2021 05:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 May 2021 05:45:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aj.id.au; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=S1wkzhMSInbf7ETtluTNggFSIVXaUzw 7tTQAjpsfmtM=; b=FoYW0kgpztRaHuqselcFrcYJ2Yb533VqrftzHAiNXQHzXvM AzNdPVWS5hflIzIFoV3nqUDJKdA1s1lF5y9k4bvzN6u3vZyrlFUyfyb1kLh4VLho ntMMbybteeW3+IGiHU8b3nGpulosot+SQnmdoCHhxbwvowPTwtYnPAmEhGqjg6KL C8hlNvcaAXucZZA5m6U1cZDj0/28f6wzJnjTBUpqrkF3T8g3SGWFP2pKJ9h3dXb5 2LrBHHDwkYCEXO+Dy4Qugy8YqPKk5WLISzl6hcsv4jWbCrWKBkujjbAfiWhiQFpM AqI/hJVCXNTEc+n29J2q8WZoGbeCgCbFmoNS6zQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=S1wkzh MSInbf7ETtluTNggFSIVXaUzw7tTQAjpsfmtM=; b=o8tKZA0hOudNHgGwBIXRf+ WsZBC1LYRL+/EaoYojHuq1pZH0nvWerdbtk4QhOMQIYG8RCbb27DBM90QyVNGnTm MqZJhR27oNpJPaelWEB5vs8A9IQS2NHpJgWnQ715wsBsny414cEt5UtgSjW0zhte iF0oM8re9DxWcbkJq2ujiRenBPfyNn2OhVEj72J9UukV9Ngniilhqr5W+KKTwZDM BlHsqwI3UGH+VxDwcnxod2slsq/LoLIun+FULMETcEUObxUYZLjhnpg+evdExBO+ hpG3N+8YP7O32VzyqMWj4yyVaQJR7JgtTQuB6MwVfDORs+5V0xnzFtqhHNJDmDlw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdejuddgudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdetnhgu rhgvficulfgvfhhfvghrhidfuceorghnughrvgifsegrjhdrihgurdgruheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepudfftddvveekfffgteffffeuveegjeelgefhffejtdehtdfhlefgkeef hfefkeeinecuffhomhgrihhnpehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrnhgurhgvfiesrghjrdhiugdrrghu X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4ED18A004B5; Thu, 20 May 2021 05:45:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <72ed5aa8-bca5-451d-9458-48735fc17b84@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210520015704.489737-1-andrew@aj.id.au> Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 19:14:48 +0930 From: "Andrew Jeffery" To: "Dwaipayan Ray" Cc: "Lukas Bulwahn" , "Linux Doc Mailing List" , "Joe Perches" , "Jonathan Corbet" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, "Jiri Slaby" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Tweak BIT() macro include Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 18:47, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from to a new file") > > > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > > > > > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery > > > > > > Looks sound to me. > > > > > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just > > > removing the references: > > > > > > So: > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from to a new file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > > > And then drop references [1] and [2]. > > > > > > Andrew, what do you think? > > > > I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and > > checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the > > commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped > > inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a > > shortcoming of checkpatch. > > > > With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and > > checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of > > complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was > > only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical. > > > > While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable > > compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch > > documentation :/ > > > > Hey, > Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors > to be emitted? We can try to fix that. > > I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider > replacing it with this if you wish? > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: > Move some macros from to a new file"). This wording works because the commit description is only split across two lines. With the wording I had it was split across three, and this caused checkpatch to barf. If we do this: While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from to a new file"). we get: ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("")' - ie: 'commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file")' #7: include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked Anyway, I've replaced the commit message with your suggestion: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20210520093949.511471-1-andrew@aj.id.au/ Thanks for work-shopping it :) Andrew