Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 于2024年7月24日周三 09:30写道： > > On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 05:11 -0400, Julian Sun wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Recently, I saw a patch[1] on the ext4 mailing list regarding > > the correction of a macro definition error. Jan mentioned > > that "The bug in the macro is a really nasty trap...". > > Because existing compilers are unable to detect > > unused parameters in macro definitions. This inspired me > > to write a script to check for unused parameters in > > macro definitions and to run it. > > > > checkpatch has a similar test: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240507032757.146386-3-21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx > > $ git log --format=email -1 b1be5844c1a0124a49a30a20a189d0a53aa10578 > From b1be5844c1a0124a49a30a20a189d0a53aa10578 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Xining Xu <mac.xxn@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 15:27:57 +1200 > Subject: [PATCH] scripts: checkpatch: check unused parameters for > function-like macro > > If function-like macros do not utilize a parameter, it might result in a > build warning. In our coding style guidelines, we advocate for utilizing > static inline functions to replace such macros. This patch verifies > compliance with the new rule. > > For a macro such as the one below, > > #define test(a) do { } while (0) > > The test result is as follows. > > WARNING: Argument 'a' is not used in function-like macro > #21: FILE: mm/init-mm.c:20: > +#define test(a) do { } while (0) > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 lines checked > > > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240507032757.146386-3-21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx Yeah, I noticted the test. The difference between checkpatch and macro_checker is that checkpatch only checks the patch files, instead of the entire source files, which results in the inability to check all macros in source files. > Thanks, -- Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@xxxxxxxxx>
