Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <72ed5aa8-bca5-451d-9458-48735fc17b84@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABJPP5C7ZokRycaE0aAvUv3BfOJqOvPyqn-P0bbPdyCfnuuESw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210520015704.489737-1-andrew@aj.id.au>
 <CAKXUXMxTnz6edBLpBgqOo6uUiSGm8rULH9P8G24xx2OhP_Yb6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <a0d1f44a-c8ff-4108-af34-6455b5683262@www.fastmail.com>
 <CABJPP5C7ZokRycaE0aAvUv3BfOJqOvPyqn-P0bbPdyCfnuuESw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 19:14:48 +0930
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@aj.id.au>
To:     "Dwaipayan Ray" <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Lukas Bulwahn" <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
        "Linux Doc Mailing List" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Joe Perches" <joe@perches.com>,
        "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, "Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: checkpatch: Tweak BIT() macro include
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 18:47, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to
> > > > include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into
> > > > include/vdso/bits.h via [2].
> > > >
> > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation
> > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use
> > > > of include/linux/bits.h.
> > > >
> > > > [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file")
> > > > [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO")
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>
> > >
> > > Looks sound to me.
> > >
> > > I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just
> > > removing the references:
> > >
> > > So:
> > >
> > > > While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to
> > > > include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into
> > > > include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO").
> > > >
> > > > I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation
> > > > detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use
> > > > of include/linux/bits.h.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And then drop references [1] and [2].
> > >
> > > Andrew, what do you think?
> >
> > I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and
> > checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the
> > commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped
> > inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a
> > shortcoming of checkpatch.
> >
> > With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and
> > checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of
> > complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was
> > only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical.
> >
> > While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable
> > compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch
> > documentation :/
> >
> 
> Hey,
> Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors
> to be emitted? We can try to fix that.
> 
> I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider
> replacing it with this if you wish?
> 
> While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to
> include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic:
> Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file").

This wording works because the commit description is only split across 
two lines. With the wording I had it was split across three, and this 
caused checkpatch to barf. If we do this:

While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to
include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic:
Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h>
file").

we get:

ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file")'
#7: 
include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic:

total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 8 lines checked

Anyway, I've replaced the commit message with your suggestion:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20210520093949.511471-1-andrew@aj.id.au/

Thanks for work-shopping it :)

Andrew