Re: [PATCH v3] checkkconfigsymbols.sh: reimplementation in python

[Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>]

Hi Valentin,

On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 09:43 +0200, Valentin Rothberg wrote:
> On dim., 2014-09-21 at 23:28 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Valentin Rothberg schreef op zo 21-09-2014 om 21:53 [+0200]:
> > > Furthermore, it generates false positives (4 of 526 in v3.17-rc1).
> > 
> > Curiosity: what are those four false positives?
> 
> 1) /arch/cris/kernel/module.c: 	ETRAX_KMALLOCED_MODULES (defined in
> arch/cris/Kconfig)

This probably because
    symb_bare=`echo $symb | sed -e 's/_MODULE//'`

in the shell script you removed should read (something untested like):
    symb_bare=`echo $symb | sed -e 's/_MODULE$//'`

> 2) ./lib/Makefile: TEST_MODULE (defined in lib/Kconfig.debug)

TEST_MODULE is an awkward name for a Kconfig symbol. My local script has
it special cased.

> 3,4) ./include/linux/module.h, ./kernel/module.c: DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX
> (defined in arch/{s390,arm,x86}/Kconfig.debug)

See above.

> > > This patch replaces the shell script with an implementation in Python,
> > > which:
> > >     (a) detects the same bugs, but does not report false positives
> > 
> > Depends a bit on the definition of false positives. Ie, the hit for
> >     ./arch/sh/kernel/head_64.S:	CACHE_
> > 
> > is caused by
> >      #error preprocessor flag CONFIG_CACHE_... not recognized!
> > 
> > Should that line, and similar lines, be changed?
> 
> I consider a false positive to actually be defined in Kconfig. The
> feature in your example does not really apply to the naming convention
> of Kconfig features ("..."), so that our regex does not match it.

But your python script does report it, doesn't it?

> However, the regex matches "CONFIG_X86_". I shall change the regex to
> not accept strings ending with "_", so that such cases are not reported.

> > > +# REGEX EXPRESSIONS
> > > +OPERATORS = r"&|\(|\)|\||\!"
> > > +FEATURE = r"\w*[A-Z]{1}\w*"
> > > +FEATURE_DEF = r"^\s*(menu){,1}config\s+" + FEATURE + r"\s*"
> > > +EXPR = r"(" + OPERATORS + r"|\s|" + FEATURE + r")*"
> > > +STMT = r"^\s*(if|select|depends\s+on)\s+" + EXPR
> > 
> >                           "depends on" with multiple spaces?
> > > +
> > > +# REGEX OBJECTS
> > > +REGEX_FILE_KCONFIG = re.compile(r"Kconfig[\.\w+\-]*$")
> > > +REGEX_FILE_SOURCE = re.compile(r"\.[cSh]$")

New observation: this causes the script to skip text files, shell
scripts, etc, doesn't it? 

> > > +REGEX_FILE_MAKE = re.compile(r"Makefile|Kbuild[\.\w+]*$")
> > > +REGEX_FEATURE = re.compile(r"(" + FEATURE + r")")
> > > +REGEX_FEATURE_DEF = re.compile(FEATURE_DEF)
> > > +REGEX_CPP_FEATURE = re.compile(r"\W+CONFIG_(" + FEATURE + r")[.]*")
> > 
> > There are a few uses of "-DCONFIG_[...]" in Makefiles. This will miss
> > those, won't it? That's not bad, per se, but a comment why you're
> > skipping those might be nice. Or are those caught too, somewhere else?
> 
> I was not aware of such uses, thanks. It seems important to cover them
> too. Does this prefix has a certain purpose?

It is, in short, a way to define preprocessor macros from the GCC
command line (see info gcc).

> > > +REGEX_KCONFIG_EXPR = re.compile(EXPR)
> > > +REGEX_KCONFIG_STMT = re.compile(STMT)
> > > +REGEX_KCONFIG_HELP = re.compile(r"^[\s|-]*help[\s|-]*")
> > 
> > Won't "^\s\+(---help---|help)$" do? Might help catch creative variants
> > of the help statement (we had a few in the past).
> 
> Yes, your regex is more robust. Thanks!

But it seems I should not have escaped the plus. Please check.


Paul Bolle