Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-181657-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <045de91c8b8e6c8ca60b2c4baf4430bd5cd5eeea.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpatch: allow multi-statement declarative
 macros.
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: jim.cromie@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linuxfoundation.org, Andy Whitcroft
 <apw@canonical.com>, Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>, Lukas Bulwahn
 <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 17:37:39 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAJfuBxxEgCT+4SVAxoWb1xvAqhgij489=z+FH9iuXwYksm-RWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240516141418.25345-1-jim.cromie@gmail.com>
	 <4a77b3a77db293acba504914af220d8b8d644616.camel@perches.com>
	 <CAJfuBxxEgCT+4SVAxoWb1xvAqhgij489=z+FH9iuXwYksm-RWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 09:20 -0600, jim.cromie@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 8:43=E2=80=AFAM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wro=
te:
> >=20
> > On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 08:14 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > Declarative macros, which declare/define storage (at either file or
> > > function scope), cannot be wrapped in do-while statements.  So
> > > checkpatch advice is incorrect here.
> > >=20
> > > The code has an $exceptions regex which allows multiple statements
> > > based on the macro name, etc; /DECLARE_PER_CPU|DEFINE_PER_CPU/ are
> > > currently accepted, widen those to accept /DECLARE|DEFINE/.
> >=20
> > It seems this exempts too large a number of these macros
> >=20
> > $ git grep -P '^\s*\#\s*define\s+\w*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)\w*'|wc -l
> > 5075
> >=20
>=20
> wow, thats more than Id have thought.
>=20
> > How about somehow limiting these exemptions more strictly?
>=20
> agreed.  I'll just add my 1 exceptional macro name.
> resending shortly.

Is this macro used in a lot of places?
Otherwise, why not just ignore the macro where it occurs?