Thread (9 messages) 9 messages, 3 authors, 2016-01-11

[PATCH v3 3/3] checkpatch: add virt barriers

From: mst@redhat.com (Michael S. Tsirkin)
Date: 2016-01-11 10:56:53
Also in: linux-arch, linux-mips, linux-s390, linux-sh, linux-um, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux

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 [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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/
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.
-- 
MST
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help