| Message ID | 1513957033-24100-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next] net/trace: fix printk format in inet_sock_set_state | expand |
Hello! On 12/22/2017 06:37 PM, Yafang Shao wrote: > There's a space character missed in the printk messages. > This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't caught ^ be? > by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run > before. > What a carelessness. You generally don't need to break up the messages violating 80-column limit, and checkpatch.pl should be aware of this... > Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint with > inet_sock_set_state tracepoint") > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> [...] MBR, Sergei
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> wrote: > Hello! > > On 12/22/2017 06:37 PM, Yafang Shao wrote: > >> There's a space character missed in the printk messages. >> This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't caught > > ^ be? It is checkpatch.pl. > >> by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run >> before. >> What a carelessness. > > > You generally don't need to break up the messages violating 80-column > limit, and checkpatch.pl should be aware of this... > Oh. That's right. It can be aware of that. I just want to make the code easy to read and limit the textwidth to 80 character. If the message takes two lines as bellow, printk("xxx " ^ space character. "yyy"); The checkpatch.pl could also be aware of that if the first line is not end with space character, but it couldn't be aware of that if run with "checkpatch.pl -f xxxx.patch". >> Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint >> with >> inet_sock_set_state tracepoint") >> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > > [...] > > MBR, Sergei
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov > <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> wrote: >> Hello! >> >> On 12/22/2017 06:37 PM, Yafang Shao wrote: >> >>> There's a space character missed in the printk messages. >>> This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't caught >> >> ^ be? > > It is checkpatch.pl. > >> >>> by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run >>> before. >>> What a carelessness. >> >> >> You generally don't need to break up the messages violating 80-column >> limit, and checkpatch.pl should be aware of this... >> > > Oh. That's right. > It can be aware of that. > > I just want to make the code easy to read and limit the textwidth to > 80 character. > > If the message takes two lines as bellow, > printk("xxx " > ^ space character. > "yyy"); > The checkpatch.pl could also be aware of that if the first line is > not end with space character, but it couldn't be aware of that if run > with "checkpatch.pl -f xxxx.patch". > Should we need to check that error as well when we run with "checkpatch.pl -f" ? > >>> Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint >>> with >>> inet_sock_set_state tracepoint") >>> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> >> >> [...] >> >> MBR, Sergei
On 12/23/2017 4:10 AM, Yafang Shao wrote: >>> There's a space character missed in the printk messages. >>> This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't caught > It is checkpatch.pl. Yes, that too. But I actually meant you missed "be" between "couldn't" and "caught"... >>> by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run >>> before. >>> What a carelessness. >> You generally don't need to break up the messages violating 80-column >> limit, and checkpatch.pl should be aware of this... > Oh. That's right. > It can be aware of that. It is aware --- I'm just not sure it recognizes TP_printk() -- like it does recognize printk() fo that purpose. > I just want to make the code easy to read and limit the textwidth to > 80 character. Contrariwise, that's what you shouldn't do. Would simplify searching for the messages in the kernel source. > If the message takes two lines as bellow, > printk("xxx " > ^ space character. > "yyy"); > The checkpatch.pl could also be aware of that if the first line is > not end with space character, but it couldn't be aware of that if run > with "checkpatch.pl -f xxxx.patch". Option -f tells checkpatch.pl that it should check a source file, not a patch. I don't know why you use that with the patches... >>> Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint >>> with >>> inet_sock_set_state tracepoint") >>> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> [...] MBR, Sergei
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> wrote: > On 12/23/2017 4:10 AM, Yafang Shao wrote: > >>>> There's a space character missed in the printk messages. >>>> This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't >>>> caught > > >> It is checkpatch.pl. > > > Yes, that too. But I actually meant you missed "be" between "couldn't" > and "caught"... > >>>> by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run >>>> before. >>>> What a carelessness. > > >>> You generally don't need to break up the messages violating 80-column >>> limit, and checkpatch.pl should be aware of this... > > >> Oh. That's right. >> It can be aware of that. > > > It is aware --- I'm just not sure it recognizes TP_printk() -- like it > does recognize printk() fo that purpose. > It recognizes TP_printk as well. I have verified. >> I just want to make the code easy to read and limit the textwidth to >> 80 character. > > > Contrariwise, that's what you shouldn't do. Would simplify searching for > the messages in the kernel source. > Agree to that. >> If the message takes two lines as bellow, >> printk("xxx " >> ^ space character. >> "yyy"); >> The checkpatch.pl could also be aware of that if the first line is >> not end with space character, but it couldn't be aware of that if run >> with "checkpatch.pl -f xxxx.patch". > > > Option -f tells checkpatch.pl that it should check a source file, not a > patch. I don't know why you use that with the patches... > Because the default option "--patch" sometimes shows some unnecessary warnings. next time I will not use '-f' option. > >>>> Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint >>>> with >>>> inet_sock_set_state tracepoint") >>>> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> > > > [...] > > MBR, Sergei
diff --git a/include/trace/events/sock.h b/include/trace/events/sock.h index 3b9094a..598399da 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/sock.h +++ b/include/trace/events/sock.h @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ } ), - TP_printk("protocol=%s sport=%hu dport=%hu saddr=%pI4 daddr=%pI4" + TP_printk("protocol=%s sport=%hu dport=%hu saddr=%pI4 daddr=%pI4 " "saddrv6=%pI6c daddrv6=%pI6c oldstate=%s newstate=%s", show_inet_protocol_name(__entry->protocol), __entry->sport, __entry->dport,
There's a space character missed in the printk messages. This error should be prevented with checkscript.pl, but it couldn't caught by running with "checkscript.pl -f xxxx.patch", that's what I had run before. What a carelessness. Fixes: 563e0bb0dc74("net: tracepoint: replace tcp_set_state tracepoint with inet_sock_set_state tracepoint") Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> --- include/trace/events/sock.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 1.8.3.1