Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1616774

Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block comment

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> 
> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> > > Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
> > 
> > Hello Hugues
> > 
> > > I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
> > > the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
> > > There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify that there
> > > are no false positives, but I have checked the output carefully and
> > > found 2 limit cases:
> > > 
> > > 1) space character placed just after "/*"
> > > WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
> > > #330: FILE: arch/alpha/kernel/core_irongate.c:330:
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Check for within the AGP aperture...
> > > => 146 hits (grep -c -n -E "\/\* $" /tmp/check.txt)
> > > 
> > > 2) // style comment followed by pointer dereference
> > > WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
> > > #426: FILE: drivers/media/dvb-core/dvb_ca_en50221.c:426:
> > > +	// success
> > > +	*tupleType = _tupleType;
> > > => 4 hits
> > > 
> > > Anyway this reveal comment style related issues, so I would say that we
> > > can keep script as it is, what do you think about ?
> > 
> > Glancing at the output, there is also the comment
> > in a multiline macro case:
> > 
> > WARNING: Block comments starts with an empty /*
> > #354: FILE: arch/mips/include/asm/processor.h:354:
> > +	/*							\
> > +	 * Other stuff associated with the process		\
> > 
> > Dunno how common that is, but maybe the test
> > should be changed to avoid those.
> > 
> 
> Here is a proposal that remove this macro case:Per
> 
> # Missing initial /*
> if ($realfile !~ m@^(drivers/net/|net/)@ &&	#networking exception
>      $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]\/\**.+[ \t]/ &&	#start with /*...
>      $prevrawline !~ /^\+.*\/\*.*\*\/[ \t]*/ &&	#no inline /*...*/
> +   $prevrawline !~ /^\+[ \t]\/\*+[ \t]+\\$/ &&#no macro /*<tab><\>
>      $rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\*/ &&
>      $realline > 2) {

Perhaps it's better to change this to 

	$prevrawline !~ /^\+\s*\/\*.*\\$/

Also perhaps the
	// foo
	*bar = baz;

case could be avoided by adding tests for the
comment character $; on $prevline and $line
and not looking only at $prevrawline and $rawline.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block comment Hugues Fruchet <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-04-03 10:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-04-03 21:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-04-05 10:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-04-05 10:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-04-05 11:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-04-05 12:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-04-05 15:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-04-07 12:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: test missing initial blank line in block  comment Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-04-07 12:30 +0200

csiph-web