Update to checkpatch.pl v0.06. Of note:
- do { and else handled correctly as control structures for { matching
- trailing whitespace correctly tripped when line otherwise empty
- support for const, including const foo * const bar
- multiline macros defining values correctly reported
This version of checkpatch.pl can be found at the following URL:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-0.06
Full Changelog:
Andy Whitcroft (14):
Version: 0.06
cleanup the Type regular expression declarations
fix up block counting
end of line counts as a space for ++ and --
do { needs the same checks as if, for et al
handle "const foo * const a" as a valid type
add spacing checks following ;
complete whitespace lines should trip trailing whitespace check
else is also a block control structure
badly formatted else can trip function declaration
detect and report trailing statements after else
types need to be terminated by a boundary
multiline macros defining values should be surrounded by parentheses
soften the wording of the Signed-off-by: warnings
Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 56c364c..277c326 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ use strict;
my $P = $0;
$P =~ s@.*/@@g;
-my $V = '0.05';
+my $V = '0.06';
use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
@@ -271,24 +271,38 @@ sub process {
my $in_comment = 0;
my $first_line = 0;
- my $ident = '[A-Za-z\d_]+';
- my $storage = '(?:extern|static)';
- my $sparse = '(?:__user|__kernel|__force|__iomem)';
- my $type = '(?:unsigned\s+)?' .
- '(?:void|char|short|int|long|unsigned|float|double|' .
- 'long\s+long|' .
- "struct\\s+${ident}|" .
- "union\\s+${ident}|" .
- "${ident}_t)" .
- "(?:\\s+$sparse)*" .
- '(?:\s*\*+)?';
- my $attribute = '(?:__read_mostly|__init|__initdata)';
-
- my $Ident = $ident;
- my $Type = $type;
- my $Storage = $storage;
- my $Declare = "(?:$storage\\s+)?$type";
- my $Attribute = $attribute;
+ my $Ident = qr{[A-Za-z\d_]+};
+ my $Storage = qr{extern|static};
+ my $Sparse = qr{__user|__kernel|__force|__iomem};
+ my $NonptrType = qr{
+ \b
+ (?:const\s+)?
+ (?:unsigned\s+)?
+ (?:
+ void|
+ char|
+ short|
+ int|
+ long|
+ unsigned|
+ float|
+ double|
+ long\s+int|
+ long\s+long|
+ long\s+long\s+int|
+ struct\s+$Ident|
+ union\s+$Ident|
+ ${Ident}_t
+ )
+ (?:\s+$Sparse)*
+ \b
+ }x;
+ my $Type = qr{
+ \b$NonptrType\b
+ (?:\s*\*+\s*const|\s*\*+)?
+ }x;
+ my $Declare = qr{(?:$Storage\s+)?$Type};
+ my $Attribute = qr{__read_mostly|__init|__initdata};
foreach my $line (@lines) {
$linenr++;
@@ -321,6 +335,7 @@ sub process {
# blank context lines so we need to count that too.
if ($line =~ /^( |\+|$)/) {
$realline++;
+ $realcnt-- if ($realcnt != 0);
# track any sort of multi-line comment. Obviously if
# the added text or context do not include the whole
@@ -345,8 +360,9 @@ sub process {
# Track the previous line.
($prevline, $stashline) = ($stashline, $line);
($previndent, $stashindent) = ($stashindent, $indent);
+ } elsif ($realcnt == 1) {
+ $realcnt--;
}
- $realcnt-- if ($realcnt != 0);
#make up the handle for any error we report on this line
$here = "#$linenr: ";
@@ -357,14 +373,11 @@ sub process {
my $hereprev = "$here\n$prevline\n$line\n\n";
#check the patch for a signoff:
- if ($line =~ /^\s*Signed-off-by:\s/) {
- $signoff++;
-
- } elsif ($line =~ /^\s*signed-off-by:/i) {
+ if ($line =~ /^\s*signed-off-by:/i) {
# This is a signoff, if ugly, so do not double report.
$signoff++;
if (!($line =~ /^\s*Signed-off-by:/)) {
- print "use Signed-off-by:\n";
+ print "Signed-off-by: is the preferred form\n";
print "$herecurr";
$clean = 0;
}
@@ -389,7 +402,7 @@ sub process {
next if ($realfile !~ /\.(h|c|s|S|pl|sh)$/);
#trailing whitespace
- if ($line=~/^\+.*\S\s+$/) {
+ if ($line =~ /^\+.*\S\s+$/ || $line =~ /^\+\s+$/) {
my $herevet = "$here\n" . cat_vet($line) . "\n\n";
print "trailing whitespace\n";
print "$herevet";
@@ -525,24 +538,23 @@ sub process {
}
# * goes on variable not on type
- if ($line =~ m{[A-Za-z\d_]+(\*+) [A-Za-z\d_]+}) {
- print "\"foo$1 bar\" should be \"foo $1bar\"\n";
+ if ($line =~ m{\($NonptrType(\*+)(?:\s+const)?\)}) {
+ print "\"(foo$1)\" should be \"(foo $1)\"\n";
print "$herecurr";
$clean = 0;
- }
- if ($line =~ m{$Type (\*) [A-Za-z\d_]+} ||
- $line =~ m{[A-Za-z\d_]+ (\*\*+) [A-Za-z\d_]+}) {
- print "\"foo $1 bar\" should be \"foo $1bar\"\n";
+
+ } elsif ($line =~ m{\($NonptrType\s+(\*+)(?!\s+const)\s+\)}) {
+ print "\"(foo $1 )\" should be \"(foo $1)\"\n";
print "$herecurr";
$clean = 0;
- }
- if ($line =~ m{\([A-Za-z\d_\s]+[A-Za-z\d_](\*+)\)}) {
- print "\"(foo$1)\" should be \"(foo $1)\"\n";
+
+ } elsif ($line =~ m{$NonptrType(\*+)(?:\s+const)?\s+[A-Za-z\d_]+}) {
+ print "\"foo$1 bar\" should be \"foo $1bar\"\n";
print "$herecurr";
$clean = 0;
- }
- if ($line =~ m{\([A-Za-z\d_\s]+[A-Za-z\d_]\s+(\*+)\s+\)}) {
- print "\"(foo $1 )\" should be \"(foo $1)\"\n";
+
+ } elsif ($line =~ m{$NonptrType\s+(\*+)(?!\s+const)\s+[A-Za-z\d_]+}) {
+ print "\"foo $1 bar\" should be \"foo $1bar\"\n";
print "$herecurr";
$clean = 0;
}
@@ -581,7 +593,7 @@ sub process {
# function brace can't be on same line, except for #defines of do while,
# or if closed on same line
- if (($line=~/[A-Za-z\d_]+\**\s+\**[A-Za-z\d_]+\(.*\).* {/) and
+ if (($line=~/$Type\s*[A-Za-z\d_]+\(.*\).* {/) and
!($line=~/\#define.*do\s{/) and !($line=~/}/)) {
print "braces following function declarations go on the next line\n";
print "$herecurr";
@@ -624,7 +636,7 @@ sub process {
my $ca = substr($opline, $off - 1, 1);
my $cc = '';
if (length($opline) >= ($off + length($elements[$n + 1]))) {
- $cc = substr($opline, $off + length($elements[$n + 1]), 1);
+ $cc = substr($opline, $off + length($elements[$n + 1]));
}
my $ctx = "${a}x${c}";
@@ -636,8 +648,16 @@ sub process {
##print "<$s1:$op:$s2> <$elements[$n]:$elements[$n + 1]:$elements[$n + 2]>\n";
- # We need ; as an operator. // is a comment.
- if ($op eq ';' or $op eq '//') {
+ # ; should have either the end of line or a space or \ after it
+ if ($op eq ';') {
+ if ($ctx !~ /.x[WE]/ && $cc !~ /^\\/) {
+ print "need space after that '$op' $at\n";
+ print "$hereptr";
+ $clean = 0;
+ }
+
+ # // is a comment
+ } elsif ($op eq '//') {
# -> should have no spaces
} elsif ($op eq '->') {
@@ -649,7 +669,7 @@ sub process {
# , must have a space on the right.
} elsif ($op eq ',') {
- if ($ctx !~ /.xW|.xE/ && $cc ne '}') {
+ if ($ctx !~ /.xW|.xE/ && $cc !~ /^}/) {
print "need space after that '$op' $at\n";
print "$hereptr";
$clean = 0;
@@ -670,12 +690,12 @@ sub process {
# unary ++ and unary -- are allowed no space on one side.
} elsif ($op eq '++' or $op eq '--') {
- if ($ctx !~ /[WOB]x[^W]/ && $ctx !~ /[^W]x[WOB]/) {
+ if ($ctx !~ /[WOB]x[^W]/ && $ctx !~ /[^W]x[WOBE]/) {
print "need space one side of that '$op' $at\n";
print "$hereptr";
$clean = 0;
}
- if ($ctx =~ /Wx./ && $cc eq ';') {
+ if ($ctx =~ /Wx./ && $cc =~ /^;/) {
print "no space before that '$op' $at\n";
print "$hereptr";
$clean = 0;
@@ -707,7 +727,7 @@ sub process {
#
} elsif ($op eq '*') {
if ($ca eq '*') {
- if ($cc =~ /\s/) {
+ if ($cc =~ /^\s(?!\s*const)/) {
print "no space after that '$op' $at\n";
print "$hereptr";
$clean = 0;
@@ -803,7 +823,7 @@ sub process {
# if/while/etc brace do not go on next line, unless defining a do while loop,
# or if that brace on the next line is for something else
- if ($prevline=~/\b(if|while|for|switch)\s*\(/) {
+ if ($prevline=~/\b(?:(if|while|for|switch)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/) {
my @opened = $prevline=~/\(/g;
my @closed = $prevline=~/\)/g;
my $nr_line = $linenr;
@@ -823,14 +843,22 @@ sub process {
@closed = $prevline=~/\)/g;
}
- if (($prevline=~/\b(if|while|for|switch)\s*\(.*\)\s*$/) and ($next_line=~/{/) and
- !($next_line=~/\b(if|while|for|switch)/) and !($next_line=~/\#define.*do.*while/)) {
+ if (($prevline=~/\b(?:(if|while|for|switch)\s*\(.*\)|do|else)\s*$/) and ($next_line=~/{/) and
+ !($next_line=~/\b(?:if|while|for|switch|do|else)\b/) and !($next_line=~/\#define.*do.*while/)) {
print "That { should be on the previous line\n";
print "$here\n$display_segment\n$next_line\n\n";
$clean = 0;
}
}
+# if and else should not have general statements after it
+ if ($line =~ /^.\s*(?:}\s*)?else\b(.*)/ &&
+ $1 !~ /^\s*(?:\sif|{|$)/) {
+ print "trailing statements should be on next line\n";
+ print "$herecurr";
+ $clean = 0;
+ }
+
# multi-statement macros should be enclosed in a do while loop, grab the
# first statement and ensure its the whole macro if its not enclosed
# in a known goot container
@@ -841,11 +869,22 @@ sub process {
# Grab the first statement, if that is the entire macro
# its ok. This may start either on the #define line
# or the one below.
- my $ctx1 = join('', ctx_statement($linenr - 1, $realcnt + 1));
- my $ctx2 = join('', ctx_statement($linenr, $realcnt));
+ my $ln = $linenr;
+ my $cnt = $realcnt;
- if ($ctx1 =~ /\\$/ && $ctx2 =~ /\\$/) {
- print "Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop\n";
+ # If the macro starts on the define line start there.
+ if ($prevline !~ m{^.#\s*define\s*$Ident(?:\([^\)]*\))?\s*\\\s*$}) {
+ $ln--;
+ $cnt++;
+ }
+ my $ctx = join('', ctx_statement($ln, $cnt));
+
+ if ($ctx =~ /\\$/) {
+ if ($ctx =~ /;/) {
+ print "Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop\n";
+ } else {
+ print "Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis\n";
+ }
print "$hereprev";
$clean = 0;
}
Andy and Joel, very cool that you got this in-tree!
I have a patch touching a bunch of fs ioctl functions.
Things like ext2_ioctl() look like this:
foo_ioctl()
{
switch(ioctl) {
case FOO:
lots
of
code
error:
return result;
case BAR:
return result;
}
Notice that the "error:" label is indented. Each of the case is kinda
like a mini function with its own variables and return statement.
Do you think it is worth teaching the patch checker about these? It
seems pretty sane style to me.
Would we want to teach it that labels must be inside of brackets, or
should we have it look at the whole file to see if there precedent for
indented labels in the file?
-- Dave
> foo_ioctl()
> {
> switch(ioctl) {
> case FOO:
> lots
> of
> code
> error:
> return result;
> case BAR:
> return result;
> }
>
> Notice that the "error:" label is indented. Each of the case is kinda
> like a mini function with its own variables and return statement.
If it is "kinda like a mini function" why not make it "actually a mini function" and
call it?
I really don't like the indenting here. When I first glanced over that code I
thought "case FOO:", "case error:", "case BAR:". Only later after reading your
description did I realize error wasn't part of the switch, but an independent label.
>
> Do you think it is worth teaching the patch checker about these? It
> seems pretty sane style to me.
It hurts my eyes. Not that I'm the coding style czar or anything, if I were the
kernel coding style would be different in several ways. But inasmuch as this is a
democracy (which it isn't) then I am opposed to crazy indentation such as your example.
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 12:54 -0500, Joel Schopp wrote:
> If it is "kinda like a mini function" why not make it "actually a mini
> function" and call it?
Several of our on-disk filesystems have an ioctl function that already
has indented goto labels. I don't think it's quite worth churning all
of these (working) filesystems to make a style checker happy.
I think it's worse style to be mixing label indentation in a file as it
is to create new "correct" indentation labels. That's why I suggested
using context in the file to determine it rather than absolute rules.
-- Dave
> Several of our on-disk filesystems have an ioctl function that already
> has indented goto labels. I don't think it's quite worth churning all
> of these (working) filesystems to make a style checker happy.
>
> I think it's worse style to be mixing label indentation in a file as it
> is to create new "correct" indentation labels. That's why I suggested
> using context in the file to determine it rather than absolute rules.
If it is bad coding style that is justified because there is already other bad coding
style to match -- that is not a judgment call for a script to make, but for a real
person to make.
There is no law that says you have to fix 100% of the warnings the script generates,
even if they are valid warnings. You'd just better be ready to justify them is all.
Your justification seems reasonable in this case -- it is worse to mix right and
wrong label indentation vs indenting wrongly but consistently.
Indent consistently wrong and feel happy about it, just don't expect the style
checker to give you a free pass when you perpetuate somebody else's wrong. If we
start down the path of bad coding style always being OK if there is already bad
coding style around it I think that is a slippery slope. There should be some
friction when we perpetuate bad style so there is some incentive to fix the style for
future generations to be able to read our code better.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:02:10AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 12:54 -0500, Joel Schopp wrote:
> > If it is "kinda like a mini function" why not make it "actually a mini
> > function" and call it?
>
> Several of our on-disk filesystems have an ioctl function that already
> has indented goto labels. I don't think it's quite worth churning all
> of these (working) filesystems to make a style checker happy.
It's not just the on-disk filesystem code. There are examples of both
styles of indentation many other parts of the kernel as well.
- Ted
Dave Hansen writes:
> Several of our on-disk filesystems have an ioctl function that already
> has indented goto labels. I don't think it's quite worth churning all
> of these (working) filesystems to make a style checker happy.
I agree.
> I think it's worse style to be mixing label indentation in a file as it
> is to create new "correct" indentation labels. That's why I suggested
> using context in the file to determine it rather than absolute rules.
I don't think indentation of labels is something one can or should be
too prescriptive about. As you say, it depends on the context.
Having a script being fascist about such things makes it useless,
because I for one will just start ignoring the script totally.
Paul.