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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 95850C28EBD for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 13:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634FC212F5 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 13:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nifty.com header.i=@nifty.com header.b="bml5OGrd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728628AbfFINJP (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2019 09:09:15 -0400 Received: from conssluserg-02.nifty.com ([210.131.2.81]:31087 "EHLO conssluserg-02.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728468AbfFINJP (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jun 2019 09:09:15 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com [209.85.217.46]) (authenticated) by conssluserg-02.nifty.com with ESMTP id x59D9AP2031817; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 22:09:11 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-02.nifty.com x59D9AP2031817 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.com; s=dec2015msa; t=1560085751; bh=urjxFy2NEO4IWkWWBxKr5z0yKlOgm41OIQHm50hlY30=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=bml5OGrd3jqBJvFoAisXFI7WMZzzdQbhDh0PKg2+B73PLIhW7o9K/4eAuaMhYRQF+ QAKakDzS+W3mMarIxYuRoI4o4B9TK3eoG33Dk+X0b/z8KitpqjeQgd0Mh4PK1NWLL5 ppHBKT6kZXjYOByep1HeUpTmeFjw+qGKhMDPkMmGZRMUW1Rt/SCeVaiVcTPV6mHtAh sk1lO51mRIj38G0mOQqM3j6u1WL9NhJ3/zJpjG4DnyDTrb0BysjM4hHablUNQqFQSy mj5T6CUn7L3gR+5FZIXuDzOahtbmjMDhDAIrkZxto/P4FRwe9LaEj3vmY0WB0g9PCq Z18qEuTyi1u5w== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.217.46] Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id v6so3806647vsq.4; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 06:09:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0wtlc4TdJnACaEAt4vZKEjvGICQAi6LlgAfSHUbZc9VfUzdjG 2BY1Znk/Ud5WBwXa54m/HjORuetFDln0u0iNhF0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzI4jRgQUipIfGjoYys5mBe1p4nX33Nb9rDgiw7jQV1ff71Cn9De0lDApp3gBKTt3c4SpMBpGIX6vmWnnA+2A= X-Received: by 2002:a67:7fcc:: with SMTP id a195mr13075826vsd.181.1560085749841; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 06:09:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190604111334.22182-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <8cf48e20064eabdfe150795365e6ca6f36032e9f.camel@perches.com> <20190604134213.GA26263@kroah.com> <20190605051040.GA22760@kroah.com> <20190605071413.779bd821@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 22:08:33 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: do not use C++ style comments in uapi headers To: Joe Perches Cc: Julia Lawall , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Greg KH , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Media Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:57 PM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-06-09 at 16:14 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:06 AM Joe Perches wrote: > > > Perhaps a checkpatch change too: > > > > > > The first block updates unsigned only bitfields > > > The second tests uapi definitions and suggests "__ > > > Good. > > > > In addition, > > > > "warn if __u8, __u16, __u32, __u64 are used outside of uapi/" > > > > Lots of kernel-space headers use __u{8,16,32,64} instead of u{8,16,32,64} > > just because developers often miss to understand when to use > > the underscore-prefixed types. > > The problem there is that checkpatch can't know if the > __ being used is for an actual uapi use or not. > > coccinelle could be much better at that. Why? u{8,16,32,64} are _exactly_ the same as __u{8,16,32,64}. See include/asm-generic/int-ll64.h We just use __u{8,16,32,64} for user-space to avoid identifier name conflict, but we do not have reason to do so for kernel-space. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada