Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the
 section analysis for the arm architecture
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com
References: <20190409135243.12424-1-raphael.gault@arm.com>
 <20190409135243.12424-4-raphael.gault@arm.com>
 <20190409161204.GS11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190409162420.GB32587@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
Message-ID: <bc258aae-1f2f-0674-2eeb-43e4cff6bb29@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:27:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190409162420.GB32587@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 09/04/2019 17:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> I'm just doing my initial read-through,.. however
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
>>> +		if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR)
>>> +			&& (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>>>  			continue;
>>
>> could you please not format code like that. Operators go at the end of
>> the line, and continuation should match the indentation of the opening
>> paren. So the above would look like:
>>
>>> +		if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) &&
>>> +		    (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>>>  			continue;
>>
>> You appear to be doing that quit consistently, and it is against style.
> 
> Raphael, as a heads-up, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl can catch issues like
> this. You can run it over a list of patches, so for a patch series you
> can run:
> 
>  $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl *.patch
> 
> ... and hopefully most of the output will be reasonable.
> 

For this particular case, checkpatch only warns about it if you pass it
"--strict" option. So in general it might be useful to include this
option at least for the first pass at including large pieces of code.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Thierry