| Message ID | 1452454200-8844-4-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
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,
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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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.
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,
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.
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*\(/) {
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(-)