Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: Add a warning for log messages that don't end in a new line

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 12:58 -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> On 27/11/17 11:57 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > It may or not be correct.
> 
> It's absolutely not correct in that it either requires that a subsequent 
> KERN_CONT/pr_cont or a '\n' at the end and it has neither.

The warning described is simply not correct.

> > Without inter-function call code flow analysis,
> > it's not possible to be correct.
> 
> But how many cases actually have the pr_cont/KERN_cont called in 
> different functions? This appears to be exceedingly rare to me.

Probably more than 50.

> > If you can get the false positive & false negative
> > rate higher, I'll listen.

> The only two classes of false positives that you've pointed out or that 
> I'm aware of:
> 
> 1) The case where call did not either end in a '\n' or have a 
> KERN_CONT/pr_cont in a subsequent call.

or a bare printk.

>  I've been arguing (to deaf ears) 

wrong here too.

> that a warning is appropriate here and this is not a false positive 
> because it absolutely is incorrect one way or the other.

The checkpatch message itself has to be correct.
Classifying the defect properly is a requirement.

> Coccinnelle 
> will also suffer from this issue because it can no better decide whether 
> the developer intended for the next call to be a continuation or for a 
> '\n' to end the line.

Well, coccinelle could do a better job than a
line parser like checkpatch.

Line parsing is what makes the type of defect difficult
for a stupid parser, and checkpatch is one of those, to
be correct enough with a low enough false positive rate
to be useful.

Please be aware I have already written just about exactly
what you are trying to do more than once and discarded
the work because the defect report rate was just too high.

> 2) Cases where the pr_cont/KERN_CONT is not in sufficient context for 
> the script to detect. These are impossible to fix (and it's likely also 
> impossible for Coccinelle to be 100% accurate here). However, I'd expect 
> these to be *very* rare and I'm only actually aware of one case where 
> this has actually happened (lib/locking-selftest.c:1189) and (mostly by 
> luck) my v2 patch does not flag this where Coccinelle did. Not to 
> mention that continuation usage is discouraged in new code so this 
> should be even rarer on the majority of what checkpatch is used for.
> 
> (also 3. would be the %pV case, but I've removed those in what could be 
> a v3 of the patch -- I'd also be happy to address other false positives 
> classes if I could find them)

> False negatives are much harder to quantify or improve. But given that I 
> detect nearly 6000 errors

No, you don't detect errors, you detect matches.

If you look at your results a bit harder, you'll find many
false positives.

> And yet, you have not pointed out any false positives that my patch 
> gives which Coccinelle does/would not. It really feels to me like your 
> biases are guiding your decision here and you aren't really looking at 
> the results.

I know the kernel source code style very well.
You simply haven't looked very hard at your results.

> Another thought I've had is that the dev_ functions don't have any form 
> of continuation.

Untrue

> So we could potentially limit checkpatch to looking for 
> those to avoid the issues with continuations. It's not high coverage but 
> at least a lot of the driver patches would be checked with no chance of 
> false positives. I think there would be value in doing that.

For instance:

drivers/mfd/ipaq-micro.c:		dev_err(micro->dev,
drivers/mfd/ipaq-micro.c-			"unknown msg %d [%d] ", id, len);
drivers/mfd/ipaq-micro.c-		for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
drivers/mfd/ipaq-micro.c-			pr_cont("0x%02x ", data[i]);
drivers/mfd/ipaq-micro.c-		pr_cont("\n");

$ git grep -A5 -P -w "\bdev_(warn|alert|crit|err|info|notice)" | \
  grep -B5 -P -w "printk|pr_cont"

will find some, but not all of these types of uses.

$ grep -A5 -rP --include=*.[ch] '\bdev_(warn|alert|crit|err|info|notice).*\"[^"]+(?<!n)"' * | \
  grep -B5 -w -P "(printk|pr_cont)"

will find fewer false positives, but miss some
multiline dev_<level> calls too.