(Adding Joe for comments) On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 1:43 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > - Document a couple of more checkpatch message types. > > - Add a blank line before all `See:` lines to improve the > > rst output. > > - Create a new subsection `Permissions` and move a few types > > to it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 170 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 163 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > So this seems good, but I just notice something that has evidently > escaped me until now... > > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > > index 51fed1bd72ec..e409f27f48b6 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ Allocation style > > The first argument for kcalloc or kmalloc_array should be the > > number of elements. sizeof() as the first argument is generally > > wrong. > > + > > See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/memory-allocation.html > > > > **ALLOC_SIZEOF_STRUCT** > > @@ -264,6 +265,7 @@ Allocation style > > **ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY** > > Prefer kmalloc_array/kcalloc over kmalloc/kzalloc with a > > sizeof multiply. > > + > > See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/memory-allocation.html > > > > > > @@ -284,6 +286,7 @@ API usage > > BUG() or BUG_ON() should be avoided totally. > > Use WARN() and WARN_ON() instead, and handle the "impossible" > > error condition as gracefully as possible. > > + > > See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#bug-and-bug-on > > > > **CONSIDER_KSTRTO** > > @@ -292,12 +295,23 @@ API usage > > may lead to unexpected results in callers. The respective kstrtol(), > > kstrtoll(), kstrtoul(), and kstrtoull() functions tend to be the > > correct replacements. > > + > > See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#simple-strtol-simple-strtoll-simple-strtoul-simple-strtoull > > > > + **IN_ATOMIC** > > + in_atomic() is not for driver use so any such use is reported as an ERROR. > > + Also in_atomic() is often used to determine if we may sleep, but it is not > > + reliable in this use model therefore its use is strongly discouraged. > > + > > + However, in_atomic() is ok for core kernel use. > > + > > + See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080320201723.b87b3732.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > + > > **LOCKDEP** > > The lockdep_no_validate class was added as a temporary measure to > > prevent warnings on conversion of device->sem to device->mutex. > > It should not be used for any other purpose. > > + > > See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1268959062.9440.467.camel@laptop/ > > > > **MALFORMED_INCLUDE** > > @@ -308,11 +322,18 @@ API usage > > **USE_LOCKDEP** > > lockdep_assert_held() annotations should be preferred over > > assertions based on spin_is_locked() > > + > > See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/locking/lockdep-design.html#annotations > > > > **UAPI_INCLUDE** > > No #include statements in include/uapi should use a uapi/ path. > > > > + **USLEEP_RANGE** > > + usleep_range() should be preferred over udelay(). The proper way of > > + using usleep_range() is mentioned in the kernel docs. > > + > > + See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/timers/timers-howto.html#delays-information-on-the-various-kernel-delay-sleep-mechanisms > > We really shouldn't be linking to outside sites - even kernel.org - when > referring to the kernel docs themselves. Just say > "Documentation/timers/timers-howto" and let the build system handle the > links. > > There's a lot of these in this file, alas... > > I've applied this patch since it makes things better overall, but I > would really like to see all those URLs go away if possible. > Thanks Jonathan. Yes it might make things better for the documentation, but again since we are using these descriptions in checkpatch's --verbose mode, we shall lose the ability to show the links there which I think is currently a good addition for the end user. And I don't think there will be a way to generate these links in checkpatch without sphinx's build system.... Are there any alternatives? Also Joe, any comments here? Thanks, Dwaipayan. > Thanks, > > jon
