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=-7.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 68D38C43460 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 12:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4E461163 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 12:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243143AbhETMsN (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 08:48:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59756 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242540AbhETMqJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 08:46:09 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 535A8C061364; Thu, 20 May 2021 05:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id i4so22499210ybe.2; Thu, 20 May 2021 05:06:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BpnZbz1EGOrIuAMnUU3qLJnhcMy80CnQMklnM6U5PS0=; b=RpXnY12B54L3+4ROy8QkuQ1Vu9h+zk4PjZbv0y3FRvD+ad9TzbyN72GxGB4d2rjikO Tfp93Wx/ZeGJhHy6SQ/exodESiqY0D9pyXqSH1oE5kn3jw0uWjegTLoAPRbfFyVFx5Zd YPCwZkPFGJZdQOIMMXgXq3DV6iKhMkLu6qpr9Iz2L/PTHFjRR9QG4ssV3i4dhuMt3bYt oOMnY0OkX2umW2M62TSQGvSoC+oQrsRjLDLqE8IKImHqOdpwwno5voxKuVJxRQvJ0tJu xRWi8OSHiFkFx9tjAXbLDk0W4gWR8uaHFRoP/vTNKEZwY2iFgDx2W2d2ssON55hXGoVs sYjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BpnZbz1EGOrIuAMnUU3qLJnhcMy80CnQMklnM6U5PS0=; b=HHbMPi7dt/53ut3Oa3O6+iPWOCj00kZaXAce0erSKVDpfaCR3pF6FwPWf+3l8JeAdO PhnPQ+BmVPx/8FpOsctST6aXP09HI28Q98jecxAuzUe9NCA5ftvMLhR1tFQ2NJBolfKg au9wGcrskjsLBQ9Tut99K44SyeqUdQPj4NS2Jfj36lnsZgoPO9hzEVnw9TiyE5Uu6RDd z9fpC1zU653cH/+6uGTERU+IiFZLCDtLcWCKT0csnFhz8FcJ5XGWBC35aBpg21bg9n9b bgzNIK6NkhZL8CTRmjw7fn3T732//BwyH261rnrJWzYzL/0LOfoTVIX2mjqUb5P0qDzo dlRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533K8KUXohavGOaGE/iD7aywGTamTU7HgViYvA8ZiCk7vJR6JG9b 9a37G82QwEAzkx3M5gOZJjYqPLfLptKYF52nl6M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcqHoGfDIubcpklyMLW47ufXvxtAvygG7bqSBd8EXKLuwNOUATJclwHf158J3+WUsorsyRORsNdi/mRFy+oK8= X-Received: by 2002:a25:8b86:: with SMTP id j6mr6186342ybl.470.1621512390469; Thu, 20 May 2021 05:06:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210520015704.489737-1-andrew@aj.id.au> <72ed5aa8-bca5-451d-9458-48735fc17b84@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lukas Bulwahn Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:06:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Tweak BIT() macro include To: Dwaipayan Ray Cc: Andrew Jeffery , Linux Doc Mailing List , Joe Perches , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List , openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, Jiri Slaby Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:21 PM Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:15 PM Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > Yes it won't work for 3 lines. We are checking only for an additional line > for split commit descriptions. Might be a thing to improve in the future. > Dwaipayan, you certainly got my go to improve checkpatch for this issue. You might want to re-run our known checkpatch evaluation and see how often this issue for commit references with multiple lines appears. Looking forward to your patch, Lukas