On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 07:07:05AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 13:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > SMP-only barriers were missing in checkpatch.pl
> >
> > Refactor code slightly to make adding more variants easier.
> []
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -5116,7 +5116,25 @@ sub process {
> > }
> > }
> > # check for memory barriers without a comment.
> > - if ($line =~ /\b(mb|rmb|wmb|read_barrier_depends|smp_mb|smp_rmb|smp_wmb|smp_read_barrier_depends)\(/) {
> > +
> > + my $barriers = qr{
> > + mb|
> > + rmb|
> > + wmb|
> > + read_barrier_depends
> > + }x;
> > + my $smp_barriers = qr{
> > + store_release|
> > + load_acquire|
> > + store_mb|
> > + ($barriers)
> > + }x;
>
> If I use a variable called $smp_barriers, I'd expect
> it to actually be the smp_barriers, not to have to
> prefix it with smp_ before using it.
>
> my $smp_barriers = qr{
> smp_store_release|
> smp_load_acquire|
> smp_store_mb|
> smp_read_barrier_depends
> }x;
>
> or
>
> my $smp_barriers = qr{
> smp_(?:store_release|load_acquire|store_mb|read_barrier_depends)
> }x;
>
Yes but virt barriers (added in patch 3) are same things but prefixed
with virt_. So we need the stems without smp_ prefix. If smp_barriers is
too confusing we'll just need to give them some other name.
How about:
my $smp_barrier_stems
?
> > + my $all_barriers = qr{
> > + $barriers|
> > + smp_($smp_barriers)
> > + }x;
>
> And this shouldn't have a capture group.
>
> my $all_barriers = qr{
> $barriers|
> $smp_barriers
> }x;
> > +
> > + if ($line =~ /\b($all_barriers)\s*\(/) {
>
> This doesn't need the capture group either (?:all_barriers)
>
> > if (!ctx_has_comment($first_line, $linenr))
> > {
> > WARN("MEMORY_BARRIER",
> > "memory barrier without
> > comment\n" . $herecurr);
