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;
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:46:00 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for
 the 'list' doubly linked list
Message-ID: <20191030184600.GC18421@kadam>
References: <20191024224631.118656-1-davidgow@google.com>
 <0cb1d948-0da3-eb0f-c58f-ae3a785dd0dd@kernel.org>
 <CABVgOSmCHbGjZBjeWSbPEZbJw22SaBQnoO77xxNzN_ugAwzNiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191030104217.GA18421@kadam>
 <42a8270d-ed6f-d29f-5e71-7b76a074b63e@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42a8270d-ed6f-d29f-5e71-7b76a074b63e@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, shuah wrote:
> On 10/30/19 4:42 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 01:02:11AM -0700, David Gow wrote:
> > > > ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
> > > > #869: FILE: lib/list-test.c:680:
> > > > +static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test)
> > > > +{
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am seeing these error and warns. As per our hallway conversation, the
> > > > "for_each*" in the test naming is tripping up checkpatch.pl
> > > > 
> > > > For now you can change the name a bit to not trip checkpatch and maybe
> > > > explore fixing checkpatch to differentiate between function names
> > > > with "for_each" in them vs. the actual for_each usages in the code.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, Shuah.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the problem here is that checkpatch.pl believes that anything
> > > with "for_each" in its name must be a loop, so expects that the open
> > > brace is placed on the same line as for a for loop.
> > > 
> > > Longer term, I think it'd be nicer, naming-wise, to fix or work around
> > > this issue in checkpatch.pl itself, as that'd allow the tests to
> > > continue to follow a naming pattern of "list_test_[x]", where [x] is
> > > the name of the function/macro being tested. Of course, short of
> > > trying to fit a whole C parser in checkpatch.pl, that's going to
> > > involve some compromises as well.
> > 
> > Just make it a black list of the 5 most common for_each macros.
> > 
> 
> How does black listing work in the context of checkpatch.pl?

Hm...  I imagined the checkpatch code a little different in my head but
this would also work to make it stricter.  I doubt it miss very many
real life style problems.

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index a85d719df1f4..4f10e8c0d285 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3607,7 +3607,7 @@ 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 ($line =~ /(.*)\b((?:if|while|for|switch|(?:[a-z_]+|)for_each[a-z_]+)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/ && $line !~ /^.\s*\#/) {
+		if ($line =~ /(.*)\b((?:if|while|for|switch|(?:list|hlist)_for_each[a-z_]+)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/ && $line !~ /^.\s*\#/) {
 			my $pre_ctx = "$1$2";
 
 			my ($level, @ctx) = ctx_statement_level($linenr, $realcnt, 0);