* [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition @ 2017-09-16 6:43 Aastha Gupta 2017-09-16 7:48 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Aastha Gupta @ 2017-09-16 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Aastha Gupta This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment Signed-off-by: Aastha Gupta <aastha.gupta4104@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c index 85775da..9c58598 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c +++ b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; - struct mutex io_mutex; + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ struct timer_list link_stat_timer; struct work_struct poll_work_obj; void (*on_netinfo)(struct most_interface *, unsigned char, -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 6:43 [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition Aastha Gupta @ 2017-09-16 7:48 ` Julia Lawall 2017-09-16 7:56 ` Aastha Gupta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aastha Gupta; +Cc: outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: > CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment > > Signed-off-by: Aastha Gupta <aastha.gupta4104@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > index 85775da..9c58598 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { > bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; > - struct mutex io_mutex; > + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ Why did you choose this comment? julia > struct timer_list link_stat_timer; > struct work_struct poll_work_obj; > void (*on_netinfo)(struct most_interface *, unsigned char, > -- > 2.7.4 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/1505544199-13800-1-git-send-email-aastha.gupta4104%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 7:48 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 7:56 ` Aastha Gupta 2017-09-16 8:23 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Aastha Gupta @ 2017-09-16 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall; +Cc: outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > >> This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: >> CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment >> >> Signed-off-by: Aastha Gupta <aastha.gupta4104@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c >> index 85775da..9c58598 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c >> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { >> bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; >> struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; >> struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; >> - struct mutex io_mutex; >> + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ > > Why did you choose this comment? > > julia The use of this struct mutex was mentioned before in the code. Aastha > >> struct timer_list link_stat_timer; >> struct work_struct poll_work_obj; >> void (*on_netinfo)(struct most_interface *, unsigned char, >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/1505544199-13800-1-git-send-email-aastha.gupta4104%40gmail.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 7:56 ` Aastha Gupta @ 2017-09-16 8:23 ` Julia Lawall 2017-09-16 8:39 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aastha Gupta; +Cc: outreachy-kernel, joe, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > >> This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: > >> CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Aastha Gupta <aastha.gupta4104@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > >> index 85775da..9c58598 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > >> +++ b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > >> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { > >> bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > >> struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > >> struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; > >> - struct mutex io_mutex; > >> + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ > > > > Why did you choose this comment? > > > > julia > > The use of this struct mutex was mentioned before in the code. I see that it is just in the doc of the same structure. I'm not sure that a double comment is needed in this case. I wonder if checkpatch should/could be extended to address this. julia > > Aastha > > > >> struct timer_list link_stat_timer; > >> struct work_struct poll_work_obj; > >> void (*on_netinfo)(struct most_interface *, unsigned char, > >> -- > >> 2.7.4 > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > >> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/1505544199-13800-1-git-send-email-aastha.gupta4104%40gmail.com. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/CAHXiS5-uqsTyjXv3KjnGnL9T7hKfEnMPL%2BRW-CXQE%2BU-oDFq2Q%40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 8:23 ` Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 8:39 ` Joe Perches 2017-09-16 9:35 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2017-09-16 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Aastha Gupta; +Cc: outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 10:23 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > > > > > This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: > > > > CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment [] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c [] > > > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { > > > > bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; > > > > - struct mutex io_mutex; > > > > + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ > > > > > > Why did you choose this comment? > > > > > > julia > > > > The use of this struct mutex was mentioned before in the code. > > I see that it is just in the doc of the same structure. I'm not sure that > a double comment is needed in this case. I wonder if checkpatch > should/could be extended to address this. I think that's not feasible. checkpatch is a patch context based check and wouldn't necessarily know that the mutex is documented elsewhere. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 8:39 ` Joe Perches @ 2017-09-16 9:35 ` Julia Lawall 2017-09-16 9:52 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches; +Cc: Aastha Gupta, outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 10:23 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: > > > > > CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment > [] > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > [] > > > > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { > > > > > bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > > struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > > struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; > > > > > - struct mutex io_mutex; > > > > > + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ > > > > > > > > Why did you choose this comment? > > > > > > > > julia > > > > > > The use of this struct mutex was mentioned before in the code. > > > > I see that it is just in the doc of the same structure. I'm not sure that > > a double comment is needed in this case. I wonder if checkpatch > > should/could be extended to address this. > > I think that's not feasible. > > checkpatch is a patch context based check and wouldn't > necessarily know that the mutex is documented elsewhere. OK. It doesn't keep any history? The kerneldoc is before the structure field declaration. julia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 9:35 ` Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 9:52 ` Joe Perches 2017-09-16 10:09 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2017-09-16 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall; +Cc: Aastha Gupta, outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 11:35 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 10:23 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: > > > > > > CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment > > > > [] > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > > > > [] > > > > > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { > > > > > > bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > > > struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > > > struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; > > > > > > - struct mutex io_mutex; > > > > > > + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ > > > > > > > > > > Why did you choose this comment? > > > > > > > > > > julia > > > > > > > > The use of this struct mutex was mentioned before in the code. > > > > > > I see that it is just in the doc of the same structure. I'm not sure that > > > a double comment is needed in this case. I wonder if checkpatch > > > should/could be extended to address this. > > > > I think that's not feasible. > > > > checkpatch is a patch context based check and wouldn't > > necessarily know that the mutex is documented elsewhere. > > OK. It doesn't keep any history? The kerneldoc is before the structure > field declaration. checkpatch reads and stores its input. checkpatch is, with very few exceptions, a line based regex scanner. An input patch context is typically 3 lines above and below modified content. Whatever context outside of that +/- 3 is unavailable. Kernel-doc comments are not parsed by checkpatch as anything special. checkpatch code that looks for specific comments looks only at whether or not a particular block has a comment at all, not the specific content of the comment. The checkpatch function test is ctx_has_comment You are welcome to try to expand the code but I think there are better possible tools for this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition 2017-09-16 9:52 ` Joe Perches @ 2017-09-16 10:09 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2017-09-16 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches; +Cc: Aastha Gupta, outreachy-kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 11:35 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 10:23 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, Aastha Gupta wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch fixes following checkpatch.pl checks: > > > > > > > CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct most_dev { > > > > > > > bool is_channel_healthy[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > > > > struct clear_hold_work clear_work[MAX_NUM_ENDPOINTS]; > > > > > > > struct usb_anchor *busy_urbs; > > > > > > > - struct mutex io_mutex; > > > > > > > + struct mutex io_mutex; /* synchronize I/O with disconnect */ > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did you choose this comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > julia > > > > > > > > > > The use of this struct mutex was mentioned before in the code. > > > > > > > > I see that it is just in the doc of the same structure. I'm not sure that > > > > a double comment is needed in this case. I wonder if checkpatch > > > > should/could be extended to address this. > > > > > > I think that's not feasible. > > > > > > checkpatch is a patch context based check and wouldn't > > > necessarily know that the mutex is documented elsewhere. > > > > OK. It doesn't keep any history? The kerneldoc is before the structure > > field declaration. > > checkpatch reads and stores its input. > > checkpatch is, with very few exceptions, a line based > regex scanner. > > An input patch context is typically 3 lines above > and below modified content. > > Whatever context outside of that +/- 3 is unavailable. > > Kernel-doc comments are not parsed by checkpatch as > anything special. > > checkpatch code that looks for specific comments looks > only at whether or not a particular block has a comment > at all, not the specific content of the comment. > > The checkpatch function test is ctx_has_comment > > You are welcome to try to expand the code but I think > there are better possible tools for this. OK, thanks. julia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-09-16 10:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-09-16 6:43 [PATCH] staging: most: hdm-usb: add comment for struct mutex definition Aastha Gupta 2017-09-16 7:48 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall 2017-09-16 7:56 ` Aastha Gupta 2017-09-16 8:23 ` Julia Lawall 2017-09-16 8:39 ` Joe Perches 2017-09-16 9:35 ` Julia Lawall 2017-09-16 9:52 ` Joe Perches 2017-09-16 10:09 ` Julia Lawall
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.