lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage
From
Date
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.roberts@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: William Roberts <william.c.roberts@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Sample output:
> > > > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?.
> > > > \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230:
> > > > + printk(KERN_INFO "Could not allocate IRQ %d for PCI
> > >
> > > Applicom
> > > > +device. %pk\n", dev->irq, pci_get_class);
> > >
> > > There isn't a single instance of this in the kernel tree.
> > >
> > > Maybe if this is really useful, then all the %p<foo> extensions should
> > > be enumerated and all unknown uses should have warnings.
> >
> > I was thinking of doing that, but I figured I would start with the bare minimum
> > patch.
> >
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > >
> > > ---
> > > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 9 +++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index
> > > ad5ea5c545b2..8a90b457e8b5 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > @@ -5305,6 +5305,15 @@ sub process {
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +# check for vsprintf extension %p<foo> misuses
> > > + if ($line =~ /\b$logFunctions\s*\(.*$String/) {
>
> I don't see the normal string formatting routines in that list... I think this is too restrictive.

I don't. There are no "normal" string formatting routines.
What do you think is missing? sn?printf ? That's easy to add.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-10 23:50    [W:0.101 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site