Hi Michael,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:52:16PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 09:13 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
presence of a comment.

[]

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl

[]

quoted

quoted

@@ -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 at gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/