On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 8:57 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-06-09 at 16:14 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:06 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Perhaps a checkpatch change too:
> > >
> > > The first block updates unsigned only bitfields
> > > The second tests uapi definitions and suggests "__<kernel_types"
> >
> > Good.
> >
> > In addition,
> >
> > "warn if __u8, __u16, __u32, __u64 are used outside of uapi/"
> >
> > Lots of kernel-space headers use __u{8,16,32,64} instead of u{8,16,32,64}
> > just because developers often miss to understand when to use
> > the underscore-prefixed types.
>
> The problem there is that checkpatch can't know if the
> __<uapi_type> being used is for an actual uapi use or not.
>
> coccinelle could be much better at that.
Why?
u{8,16,32,64} are _exactly_ the same as __u{8,16,32,64}.
See include/asm-generic/int-ll64.h
We just use __u{8,16,32,64} for user-space
to avoid identifier name conflict,
but we do not have reason to do so for kernel-space.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
