On 27/11/17 01:28 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
checkpatch already reports printks without KERN_<level>
# printk should use KERN_* levels
if ($line =~ /\bprintk\s*\(\s*(?!KERN_[A-Z]+\b)/) {
WARN("PRINTK_WITHOUT_KERN_LEVEL",
"printk() should include KERN_<LEVEL> facility level\n" . $herecurr);
}
Yes, but that kind of misses the mark in a similar way a new line
warning misses the mark. Consider:
printk("blahblah: ");
printk("blah\n");
Check patch will report that both lines are missing a KERN_ level, but
actually the second line is meant to be a continuation. So someone fixes
it, naively:
printk(KERN_INFO, "blahblah: ");
printk(KERN_INFO, "blah\n");
Now, checkpatch will not warn on either and it looks like they fixed it,
even though it's pretty clear that it's not correct either way. With, my
patch, it will report a missing new line on the first line. If someone
looked at it, they may realize it's actually missing a KERN_CONT. If we
use the space heuristic, in this case, the warning might also suggest it
may be missing a _cont. But the huristic isn't great... maybe the author
actually meant:
printk(KERN_INFO, "blahblah:\n");
printk(KERN_INFO, " blah\n");
But I wouldn't say a warning in this case is a bad thing because it
forces someone to look at something that is obviously wrong in some way.
Logan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
