All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,viresh.kumar@linaro.org,lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,louis.chauvet@bootlin.com,joe@perches.com,dwaipayanray1@gmail.com,apw@canonical.com,jim.cromie@gmail.com,akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: [merged mm-nonmm-stable] checkpatch-qualify-do-while-0-advice.patch removed from -mm tree
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 17:55:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250512005546.E96F3C4CEE4@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)


The quilt patch titled
     Subject: checkpatch: qualify do-while-0 advice
has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
     checkpatch-qualify-do-while-0-advice.patch

This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-nonmm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm

------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>
Subject: checkpatch: qualify do-while-0 advice
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:51:55 -0600

Add a paragraph of advice qualifying the general do-while-0 advice, noting
3 possible misguidings.  reduce one ERROR to WARN, for the case I actually
encountered.

And add 'static_assert' to named exceptions, along with some additional
comments about named exceptions vs (detection of) declarative construction
primitives (union, struct, [], etc).

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250325235156.663269-3-jim.cromie@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Louis Chauvet <louis.chauvet@bootlin.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 scripts/checkpatch.pl |   33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl~checkpatch-qualify-do-while-0-advice
+++ a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -151,6 +151,24 @@ EOM
 	exit($exitcode);
 }
 
+my $DO_WHILE_0_ADVICE = q{
+   do {} while (0) advice is over-stated in a few situations:
+
+   The more obvious case is macros, like MODULE_PARM_DESC, invoked at
+   file-scope, where C disallows code (it must be in functions).  See
+   $exceptions if you have one to add by name.
+
+   More troublesome is declarative macros used at top of new scope,
+   like DECLARE_PER_CPU.  These might just compile with a do-while-0
+   wrapper, but would be incorrect.  Most of these are handled by
+   detecting struct,union,etc declaration primitives in $exceptions.
+
+   Theres also macros called inside an if (block), which "return" an
+   expression.  These cannot do-while, and need a ({}) wrapper.
+
+   Enjoy this qualification while we work to improve our heuristics.
+};
+
 sub uniq {
 	my %seen;
 	return grep { !$seen{$_}++ } @_;
@@ -5883,9 +5901,9 @@ sub process {
 			}
 		}
 
-# multi-statement macros should be enclosed in a do while loop, grab the
-# first statement and ensure its the whole macro if its not enclosed
-# in a known good container
+# Usually multi-statement macros should be enclosed in a do {} while
+# (0) loop.  Grab the first statement and ensure its the whole macro
+# if its not enclosed in a known good container
 		if ($realfile !~ m@/vmlinux.lds.h$@ &&
 		    $line =~ /^.\s*\#\s*define\s*$Ident(\()?/) {
 			my $ln = $linenr;
@@ -5938,10 +5956,13 @@ sub process {
 
 			my $exceptions = qr{
 				$Declare|
+				# named exceptions
 				module_param_named|
 				MODULE_PARM_DESC|
 				DECLARE_PER_CPU|
 				DEFINE_PER_CPU|
+				static_assert|
+				# declaration primitives
 				__typeof__\(|
 				union|
 				struct|
@@ -5976,11 +5997,11 @@ sub process {
 					ERROR("MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE",
 					      "Macros starting with if should be enclosed by a do - while loop to avoid possible if/else logic defects\n" . "$herectx");
 				} elsif ($dstat =~ /;/) {
-					ERROR("MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE",
-					      "Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop\n" . "$herectx");
+					WARN("MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE",
+					      "Non-declarative macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop\n" . "$herectx\nBUT SEE:\n$DO_WHILE_0_ADVICE");
 				} else {
 					ERROR("COMPLEX_MACRO",
-					      "Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses\n" . "$herectx");
+					      "Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses\n" . "$herectx\nBUT SEE:\n$DO_WHILE_0_ADVICE");
 				}
 
 			}
_

Patches currently in -mm which might be from jim.cromie@gmail.com are



                 reply	other threads:[~2025-05-12  0:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250512005546.E96F3C4CEE4@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apw@canonical.com \
    --cc=dwaipayanray1@gmail.com \
    --cc=jim.cromie@gmail.com \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=louis.chauvet@bootlin.com \
    --cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
    --cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.