On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:26:47PM +0200, Benoit Taine wrote:
> > > We should prefer `const struct pci_device_id` over
> > > `DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE` to meet kernel coding style guidelines.
> > > This issue was reported by checkpatch.
> > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 4 ++--
> > Honestly, I prefer the macro -- it stands-out more. Maybe the style
> > guidelines and/or checkpatch should change instead?
>
> The macro is horrid, no other bus has this type of thing just to save a
> few characters in typing, so why should PCI be "special" in this regard
> anymore?
I think it doesn't matter much.
The PCI_DEVICE and PCI_VDEVICE macro uses are somewhat similar
and are frequently used with PCI_DEVICE_TABLE, so there's some
commonality there.
The checkpatch message could be made --strict/CHK instead of
WARN so most people would never see it.
Of course it could be removed altogether too. I don't care.
---
(suggested patch is for -next)
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index dc72a9b..754fbf2 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3018,8 +3018,8 @@ sub process {
# check for uses of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE
if ($line =~ /\bDEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE\s*\(\s*(\w+)\s*\)\s*=/) {
- if (WARN("DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE",
- "Prefer struct pci_device_id over deprecated DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE\n" . $herecurr) &&
+ if (CHK("DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE",
+ "Prefer struct pci_device_id over deprecated DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE\n" . $herecurr) &&
$fix) {
$fixed[$fixlinenr] =~ s/\b(?:static\s+|)DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE\s*\(\s*(\w+)\s*\)\s*=\s*/static const struct pci_device_id $1\[\] = /;
}
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
