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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1323562 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

Started byMatt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
First post2016-02-01 23:10 +0100
Last post2016-02-03 12:10 +0100
Articles 7 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-02-01 23:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h  GUID additions Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-03 11:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h  GUID additions Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 11:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h  GUID additions Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-03 12:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h  GUID additions Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 12:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h  GUID additions Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-03 12:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h  GUID additions Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-02-03 12:10 +0100

#1323562 — [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromMatt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date2016-02-01 23:10 +0100
Subject[PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qXuPy-WW-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
From: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>

This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
it.

Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
---
 include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
--- a/include/linux/efi.h
+++ b/include/linux/efi.h
@@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
  *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
  */
 #define NULL_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
+	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
+		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
 
 #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
+	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
+		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
 
 #define ACPI_TABLE_GUID    \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d30, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
+	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d30, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
+		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
 
 #define ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID    \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x8868e871, 0xe4f1, 0x11d3, 0xbc, 0x22, 0x0, 0x80, 0xc7, 0x3c, 0x88, 0x81 )
+	EFI_GUID(0x8868e871, 0xe4f1, 0x11d3, \
+		 0xbc, 0x22, 0x00, 0x80, 0xc7, 0x3c, 0x88, 0x81)
 
 #define SMBIOS_TABLE_GUID    \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d31, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
+	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d31, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
+		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
 
 #define SMBIOS3_TABLE_GUID    \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xf2fd1544, 0x9794, 0x4a2c, 0x99, 0x2e, 0xe5, 0xbb, 0xcf, 0x20, 0xe3, 0x94 )
+	EFI_GUID(0xf2fd1544, 0x9794, 0x4a2c, \
+		 0x99, 0x2e, 0xe5, 0xbb, 0xcf, 0x20, 0xe3, 0x94)
 
 #define SAL_SYSTEM_TABLE_GUID    \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d32, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
+	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d32, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
+		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
 
 #define HCDP_TABLE_GUID	\
-    EFI_GUID(  0xf951938d, 0x620b, 0x42ef, 0x82, 0x79, 0xa8, 0x4b, 0x79, 0x61, 0x78, 0x98 )
+	EFI_GUID(0xf951938d, 0x620b, 0x42ef, \
+		 0x82, 0x79, 0xa8, 0x4b, 0x79, 0x61, 0x78, 0x98)
 
 #define UGA_IO_PROTOCOL_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x61a4d49e, 0x6f68, 0x4f1b, 0xb9, 0x22, 0xa8, 0x6e, 0xed, 0xb, 0x7, 0xa2 )
+	EFI_GUID(0x61a4d49e, 0x6f68, 0x4f1b, \
+		 0xb9, 0x22, 0xa8, 0x6e, 0xed, 0x0b, 0x07, 0xa2)
 
 #define EFI_GLOBAL_VARIABLE_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x8be4df61, 0x93ca, 0x11d2, 0xaa, 0x0d, 0x00, 0xe0, 0x98, 0x03, 0x2b, 0x8c )
+	EFI_GUID(0x8be4df61, 0x93ca, 0x11d2, \
+		 0xaa, 0x0d, 0x00, 0xe0, 0x98, 0x03, 0x2b, 0x8c)
 
 #define UV_SYSTEM_TABLE_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x3b13a7d4, 0x633e, 0x11dd, 0x93, 0xec, 0xda, 0x25, 0x56, 0xd8, 0x95, 0x93 )
+	EFI_GUID(0x3b13a7d4, 0x633e, 0x11dd, \
+		 0x93, 0xec, 0xda, 0x25, 0x56, 0xd8, 0x95, 0x93)
 
 #define LINUX_EFI_CRASH_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xcfc8fc79, 0xbe2e, 0x4ddc, 0x97, 0xf0, 0x9f, 0x98, 0xbf, 0xe2, 0x98, 0xa0 )
+	EFI_GUID(0xcfc8fc79, 0xbe2e, 0x4ddc, \
+		 0x97, 0xf0, 0x9f, 0x98, 0xbf, 0xe2, 0x98, 0xa0)
 
 #define LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x5b1b31a1, 0x9562, 0x11d2, 0x8e, 0x3f, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x69, 0x72, 0x3b )
+	EFI_GUID(0x5b1b31a1, 0x9562, 0x11d2, \
+		 0x8e, 0x3f, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x69, 0x72, 0x3b)
 
 #define EFI_GRAPHICS_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x9042a9de, 0x23dc, 0x4a38, 0x96, 0xfb, 0x7a, 0xde, 0xd0, 0x80, 0x51, 0x6a )
+	EFI_GUID(0x9042a9de, 0x23dc, 0x4a38, \
+		 0x96, 0xfb, 0x7a, 0xde, 0xd0, 0x80, 0x51, 0x6a)
 
 #define EFI_UGA_PROTOCOL_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x982c298b, 0xf4fa, 0x41cb, 0xb8, 0x38, 0x77, 0xaa, 0x68, 0x8f, 0xb8, 0x39 )
+	EFI_GUID(0x982c298b, 0xf4fa, 0x41cb, \
+		 0xb8, 0x38, 0x77, 0xaa, 0x68, 0x8f, 0xb8, 0x39)
 
 #define EFI_PCI_IO_PROTOCOL_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x4cf5b200, 0x68b8, 0x4ca5, 0x9e, 0xec, 0xb2, 0x3e, 0x3f, 0x50, 0x2, 0x9a )
+	EFI_GUID(0x4cf5b200, 0x68b8, 0x4ca5, \
+		 0x9e, 0xec, 0xb2, 0x3e, 0x3f, 0x50, 0x02, 0x9a)
 
 #define EFI_FILE_INFO_ID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x9576e92, 0x6d3f, 0x11d2, 0x8e, 0x39, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x69, 0x72, 0x3b )
+	EFI_GUID(0x9576e92, 0x6d3f, 0x11d2, \
+		 0x8e, 0x39, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x69, 0x72, 0x3b)
 
 #define EFI_SYSTEM_RESOURCE_TABLE_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xb122a263, 0x3661, 0x4f68, 0x99, 0x29, 0x78, 0xf8, 0xb0, 0xd6, 0x21, 0x80 )
+	EFI_GUID(0xb122a263, 0x3661, 0x4f68, \
+		 0x99, 0x29, 0x78, 0xf8, 0xb0, 0xd6, 0x21, 0x80)
 
 #define EFI_FILE_SYSTEM_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x964e5b22, 0x6459, 0x11d2, 0x8e, 0x39, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x69, 0x72, 0x3b )
+	EFI_GUID(0x964e5b22, 0x6459, 0x11d2, \
+		 0x8e, 0x39, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x69, 0x72, 0x3b)
 
 #define DEVICE_TREE_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0xb1b621d5, 0xf19c, 0x41a5, 0x83, 0x0b, 0xd9, 0x15, 0x2c, 0x69, 0xaa, 0xe0 )
+	EFI_GUID(0xb1b621d5, 0xf19c, 0x41a5, \
+		 0x83, 0x0b, 0xd9, 0x15, 0x2c, 0x69, 0xaa, 0xe0)
 
 #define EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE_GUID \
-    EFI_GUID(  0x880aaca3, 0x4adc, 0x4a04, 0x90, 0x79, 0xb7, 0x47, 0x34, 0x08, 0x25, 0xe5 )
+	EFI_GUID(0x880aaca3, 0x4adc, 0x4a04, \
+		 0x90, 0x79, 0xb7, 0x47, 0x34, 0x08, 0x25, 0xe5)
 
 typedef struct {
 	efi_guid_t guid;
-- 
2.6.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1325177 — Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-02-03 11:40 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qY30S-K9-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1323562
* Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> 
> This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> ---
>  include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
>   *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
>   */
>  #define NULL_GUID \
> -    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> +	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> +		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
>  
>  #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
> -    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> +	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> +		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)

So I really think this is a step backwards.

Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:


	#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
	...
	#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE

... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1325190 — Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromMatt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date2016-02-03 11:50 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qY3ay-Nu-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1325177
On Wed, 03 Feb, at 11:33:35AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > From: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> > 
> > This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> > you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> > it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> > index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
> >   *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
> >   */
> >  #define NULL_GUID \
> > -    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> > +	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> > +		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
> >  
> >  #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
> > -    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> > +	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> > +		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
> 
> So I really think this is a step backwards.
> 
> Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:
> 
> 
> 	#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> 	...
> 	#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> 
> ... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.

Irrespective of which tool suggested this change, I think this patch
is an improvement because the GUIDs now match the format from the UEFI
spec, making checking for typos that much easier (yes, I've really had
to do that in the past).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1325200 — Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-02-03 12:00 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qY3kf-QW-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1325190
* Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Feb, at 11:33:35AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> > > you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> > > index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > > @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
> > >   *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
> > >   */
> > >  #define NULL_GUID \
> > > -    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> > > +	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> > > +		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
> > >  
> > >  #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
> > > -    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> > > +	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> > > +		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
> > 
> > So I really think this is a step backwards.
> > 
> > Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:
> > 
> > 
> > 	#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> > 	...
> > 	#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> > 
> > ... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.
> 
> Irrespective of which tool suggested this change, I think this patch
> is an improvement because the GUIDs now match the format from the UEFI
> spec, making checking for typos that much easier (yes, I've really had
> to do that in the past).

Hm, so the GUIDs are line-broken in the same fashion in the spec, after the third 
parameter?

That's a strong reason indeed - and then the changelog and title should say that: 
're-format GUID tables to follow the format of the UEFI spec'. That it also 
pacifies checkpatch is a side effect.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1325218 — Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromMatt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date2016-02-03 12:20 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qY3Dz-1cM-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1325200
On Wed, 03 Feb, at 11:50:35AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Hm, so the GUIDs are line-broken in the same fashion in the spec, after the third 
> parameter?
 
Yep, they are.

> That's a strong reason indeed - and then the changelog and title should say that: 
> 're-format GUID tables to follow the format of the UEFI spec'. That it also 
> pacifies checkpatch is a side effect.

I think that's a fair change.

Peter could you take a look at updating the changelog in a v2? If not,
I'll do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1325230 — Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-02-03 12:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qY3Ng-1gx-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1325218
* Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Feb, at 11:50:35AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Hm, so the GUIDs are line-broken in the same fashion in the spec, after the third 
> > parameter?
>  
> Yep, they are.
> 
> > That's a strong reason indeed - and then the changelog and title should say that: 
> > 're-format GUID tables to follow the format of the UEFI spec'. That it also 
> > pacifies checkpatch is a side effect.
> 
> I think that's a fair change.
> 
> Peter could you take a look at updating the changelog in a v2? If not,
> I'll do it.

Note that I applied most of your patches to tip:efi/core, which I've just pushed 
out. You might want to base v2 on that.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1325203 — Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

FromJoe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date2016-02-03 12:10 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions
Message-ID<qY3tU-19p-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1325177
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > From: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> > 
> > This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> > you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> > it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> > index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
> >   *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
> >   */
> >  #define NULL_GUID \
> > -    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> > +	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> > +		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
> >  
> >  #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
> > -    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> > +	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> > +		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
> 
> So I really think this is a step backwards.

Some people take checkpatch messages altogether too seriously.

from: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/568
----------------------------------
The other thing that might help is for people to take
the warnings the script produces less seriously.

Maybe convert:

ERROR -> defect
WARNING -> unstylish
CHECK -> nitpick

or some such
----------------------------------
> Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:
> 
> 
> 	#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> 	...
> 	#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> 
> ... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.

A similar proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/30/175

checkpatch works on patches.
If the #define isn't in the patch scope the script won't know.

Perhaps it's simpler to add some facility to allow lines
with known keywords to exceed $max_line_length similar
to the format strings of logging functions.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web