[v3,3/3] checkpatch: add virt barriers
diff mbox

Message ID 1452454200-8844-4-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Michael S. Tsirkin Jan. 10, 2016, 7:31 p.m. UTC
Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
presence of a comment.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Julian Calaby Jan. 10, 2016, 10:13 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi Michael,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
> presence of a comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 15cfca4..4466579 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@ sub process {
>                 }x;
>                 my $all_barriers = qr{
>                         $barriers|
> -                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> +                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
> +                       virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)

Sorry I'm late to the party here, but would it make sense to write this as:

(?:smp|virt)_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)

Thanks,
Joe Perches Jan. 10, 2016, 10:52 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 09:13 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
> > presence of a comment.
[]
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> > @@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@ sub process {
> >                 }x;
> >                 my $all_barriers = qr{
> >                         $barriers|
> > -                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> > +                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
> > +                       virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> 
> Sorry I'm late to the party here, but would it make sense to write this as:
> 
> (?:smp|virt)_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)

Yes.  Perhaps the name might be better as barrier_stems.

Also, ideally this would be longest match first or use \b
after the matches so that $all_barriers could work
successfully without a following \s*\(

my $all_barriers = qr{
	(?:smp|virt)_(?:barrier_stems)|
	$barriers)
}x;

or maybe add separate $smp_barriers and $virt_barriers

<shrug>  it doesn't matter much in any case
Michael S. Tsirkin Jan. 11, 2016, 10:35 a.m. UTC | #3
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:52:16PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 09:13 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
> > > presence of a comment.
> []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > > @@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@ sub process {
> > >                 }x;
> > >                 my $all_barriers = qr{
> > >                         $barriers|
> > > -                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> > > +                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
> > > +                       virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> > 
> > Sorry I'm late to the party here, but would it make sense to write this as:
> > 
> > (?:smp|virt)_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> 
> Yes.  Perhaps the name might be better as barrier_stems.
> 
> Also, ideally this would be longest match first or use \b
> after the matches so that $all_barriers could work
> successfully without a following \s*\(
> 
> my $all_barriers = qr{
> 	(?:smp|virt)_(?:barrier_stems)|
> 	$barriers)
> }x;
> 
> or maybe add separate $smp_barriers and $virt_barriers
> 
> <shrug>  it doesn't matter much in any case

OK just to clarify - are you OK with merging the patch as is?
Refactorings can come as patches on top if required.
Julian Calaby Jan. 11, 2016, 10:40 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Michael,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:52:16PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 09:13 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
>> > > presence of a comment.
>> []
>> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> []
>> > > @@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@ sub process {
>> > >                 }x;
>> > >                 my $all_barriers = qr{
>> > >                         $barriers|
>> > > -                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
>> > > +                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
>> > > +                       virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
>> >
>> > Sorry I'm late to the party here, but would it make sense to write this as:
>> >
>> > (?:smp|virt)_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
>>
>> Yes.  Perhaps the name might be better as barrier_stems.
>>
>> Also, ideally this would be longest match first or use \b
>> after the matches so that $all_barriers could work
>> successfully without a following \s*\(
>>
>> my $all_barriers = qr{
>>       (?:smp|virt)_(?:barrier_stems)|
>>       $barriers)
>> }x;
>>
>> or maybe add separate $smp_barriers and $virt_barriers
>>
>> <shrug>  it doesn't matter much in any case
>
> OK just to clarify - are you OK with merging the patch as is?
> Refactorings can come as patches on top if required.

I don't really care either way, I was just asking if it was possible.
If you don't see any value in that change, then don't make it.

Thanks,
Michael S. Tsirkin Jan. 11, 2016, 10:56 a.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 09:40:18PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:52:16PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 09:13 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > > Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
> >> > > presence of a comment.
> >> []
> >> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> >> []
> >> > > @@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@ sub process {
> >> > >                 }x;
> >> > >                 my $all_barriers = qr{
> >> > >                         $barriers|
> >> > > -                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> >> > > +                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
> >> > > +                       virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> >> >
> >> > Sorry I'm late to the party here, but would it make sense to write this as:
> >> >
> >> > (?:smp|virt)_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
> >>
> >> Yes.  Perhaps the name might be better as barrier_stems.
> >>
> >> Also, ideally this would be longest match first or use \b
> >> after the matches so that $all_barriers could work
> >> successfully without a following \s*\(
> >>
> >> my $all_barriers = qr{
> >>       (?:smp|virt)_(?:barrier_stems)|
> >>       $barriers)
> >> }x;
> >>
> >> or maybe add separate $smp_barriers and $virt_barriers
> >>
> >> <shrug>  it doesn't matter much in any case
> >
> > OK just to clarify - are you OK with merging the patch as is?
> > Refactorings can come as patches on top if required.
> 
> I don't really care either way, I was just asking if it was possible.
> If you don't see any value in that change, then don't make it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Julian Calaby
> 
> Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
> Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/

OK, got it, thanks.

I will rename smp_barrier_stems to barrier_stems since
this doesn't need too much testing.

I'd rather keep the regex code as is since changing it requires
testing.  I might play with it some more in the future
but I'd like to merge it in the current form to help make
sure __smp barriers are not misused.

I'll post v4 now - an ack will be appreciated.

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 15cfca4..4466579 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@  sub process {
 		}x;
 		my $all_barriers = qr{
 			$barriers|
-			smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
+			smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
+			virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
 		}x;
 
 		if ($line =~ /\b(?:$all_barriers)\s*\(/) {