| Message ID | 20210520015704.489737-1-andrew@aj.id.au |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Documentation: checkpatch: Tweak BIT() macro include | expand |
On 20. 05. 21, 3:57, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > of include/linux/bits.h. > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> Thanks. > --- > Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > index 51fed1bd72ec..59fcc9f627ea 100644 > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ Macros, Attributes and Symbols > > **BIT_MACRO** > Defines like: 1 << <digit> could be BIT(digit). > - The BIT() macro is defined in include/linux/bitops.h:: > + The BIT() macro is defined via include/linux/bits.h:: > > #define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) > >
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > of include/linux/bits.h. > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> Looks sound to me. I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just removing the references: So: > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > of include/linux/bits.h. > And then drop references [1] and [2]. Andrew, what do you think? Lukas
On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> > > Looks sound to me. > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just > removing the references: > > So: > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > And then drop references [1] and [2]. > > Andrew, what do you think? I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a shortcoming of checkpatch. With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical. While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch documentation :/ Andrew
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > > > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> > > > > Looks sound to me. > > > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just > > removing the references: > > > > So: > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > And then drop references [1] and [2]. > > > > Andrew, what do you think? > > I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and > checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the > commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped > inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a > shortcoming of checkpatch. > > With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and > checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of > complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was > only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical. > > While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable > compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch > documentation :/ > Hey, Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors to be emitted? We can try to fix that. I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider replacing it with this if you wish? While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit BIT() has moved again into include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered an implementation detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use of include/linux/bits.h. Thanks, Dwaipayan.
On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 18:47, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > > > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > > > > > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> > > > > > > Looks sound to me. > > > > > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just > > > removing the references: > > > > > > So: > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > > > And then drop references [1] and [2]. > > > > > > Andrew, what do you think? > > > > I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and > > checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the > > commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped > > inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a > > shortcoming of checkpatch. > > > > With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and > > checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of > > complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was > > only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical. > > > > While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable > > compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch > > documentation :/ > > > > Hey, > Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors > to be emitted? We can try to fix that. > > I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider > replacing it with this if you wish? > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: > Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). This wording works because the commit description is only split across two lines. With the wording I had it was split across three, and this caused checkpatch to barf. If we do this: While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). we get: ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file")' #7: include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked Anyway, I've replaced the commit message with your suggestion: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20210520093949.511471-1-andrew@aj.id.au/ Thanks for work-shopping it :) Andrew
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:15 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 18:47, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > > > > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> > > > > > > > > Looks sound to me. > > > > > > > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just > > > > removing the references: > > > > > > > > So: > > > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then drop references [1] and [2]. > > > > > > > > Andrew, what do you think? > > > > > > I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and > > > checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the > > > commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped > > > inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a > > > shortcoming of checkpatch. > > > > > > With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and > > > checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of > > > complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was > > > only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical. > > > > > > While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable > > > compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch > > > documentation :/ > > > > > > > Hey, > > Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors > > to be emitted? We can try to fix that. > > > > I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider > > replacing it with this if you wish? > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: > > Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). > > This wording works because the commit description is only split across > two lines. With the wording I had it was split across three, and this > caused checkpatch to barf. If we do this: > Yes it won't work for 3 lines. We are checking only for an additional line for split commit descriptions. Might be a thing to improve in the future. > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: > Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> > file"). > > we get: > > ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file")' > #7: > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: > > total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked > > Anyway, I've replaced the commit message with your suggestion: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20210520093949.511471-1-andrew@aj.id.au/ > > Thanks for work-shopping it :) > Thanks for the patch :) Dwaipayan.
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:21 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:15 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 18:47, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into > > > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") > > > > > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> > > > > > > > > > > Looks sound to me. > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just > > > > > removing the references: > > > > > > > > > > So: > > > > > > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into > > > > > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO"). > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation > > > > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use > > > > > > of include/linux/bits.h. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then drop references [1] and [2]. > > > > > > > > > > Andrew, what do you think? > > > > > > > > I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and > > > > checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the > > > > commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped > > > > inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a > > > > shortcoming of checkpatch. > > > > > > > > With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and > > > > checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of > > > > complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was > > > > only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical. > > > > > > > > While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable > > > > compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch > > > > documentation :/ > > > > > > > > > > Hey, > > > Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors > > > to be emitted? We can try to fix that. > > > > > > I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider > > > replacing it with this if you wish? > > > > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: > > > Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). > > > > This wording works because the commit description is only split across > > two lines. With the wording I had it was split across three, and this > > caused checkpatch to barf. If we do this: > > > > Yes it won't work for 3 lines. We are checking only for an additional line > for split commit descriptions. Might be a thing to improve in the future. > Dwaipayan, you certainly got my go to improve checkpatch for this issue. You might want to re-run our known checkpatch evaluation and see how often this issue for commit references with multiple lines appears. Looking forward to your patch, Lukas
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst index 51fed1bd72ec..59fcc9f627ea 100644 --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ Macros, Attributes and Symbols **BIT_MACRO** Defines like: 1 << <digit> could be BIT(digit). - The BIT() macro is defined in include/linux/bitops.h:: + The BIT() macro is defined via include/linux/bits.h:: #define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr))
While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into include/vdso/bits.h via [2]. I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use of include/linux/bits.h. [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file") [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO") Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> --- Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)