[PATCH] Handle space after for_each_* macros gracefully in checkpatch

[PATCH] Handle space after for_each_* macros gracefully in checkpatch

[Andi Kleen]

Handle space after for_each_* macros gracefully in checkpatch.pl

Anyone else seeing the irony of checkpatch.pl recommending to 
use for_each_cpu_mask, but then not actually parsing it
correctly.

When you write 

	for_each_cpu_mask (...) { 

it would complain about the space between mask and the open bracket
because it thinks it's a normal function call.

Fix this in a generic way. In theory someone could construct
a normal function that starts with for_each_* and it would
not warn, but I think that would be uncommon. The alternative
of listing all macros was tried first, but turned out to 
be unwieldly.

I think I covered most of the common ones available, the
only exceptions are a few oddballs with leading prefix 
like pnp_for_each* or zorro_for_each.

Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>

Index: linux-2.6.27-misc/scripts/checkpatch.pl
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.27-misc.orig/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ linux-2.6.27-misc/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1513,6 +1513,7 @@ sub process {
 				if|for|while|switch|return|case|
 				volatile|__volatile__|
 				__attribute__|format|__extension__|
+				([ph]?list_)?for_each_[a-z_]+|
 				asm|__asm__)$/x)
 			{
 

Re: [PATCH] Handle space after for_each_* macros gracefully in checkpatch

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:50:10PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Handle space after for_each_* macros gracefully in checkpatch.pl
> 
> Anyone else seeing the irony of checkpatch.pl recommending to 
> use for_each_cpu_mask, but then not actually parsing it
> correctly.
> 
> When you write 
> 
> 	for_each_cpu_mask (...) { 
> 
> it would complain about the space between mask and the open bracket
> because it thinks it's a normal function call.
> 
> Fix this in a generic way. In theory someone could construct
> a normal function that starts with for_each_* and it would
> not warn, but I think that would be uncommon. The alternative
> of listing all macros was tried first, but turned out to 
> be unwieldly.
> 
> I think I covered most of the common ones available, the
> only exceptions are a few oddballs with leading prefix 
> like pnp_for_each* or zorro_for_each.

I am happy with this conceptually.  However when this was suggested
before there was a concensus that that it was not obvious whether this
was meant to be written as a function or a control and nothing was done.

So if people are with you on this, I am happy.

-apw