From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] include/checkpatch: Prefer __scanf to __attribute__((format(scanf, ...) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:00:29 -0800 Message-ID: <1327370429.20805.4.camel@joe2Laptop> References: <2cf7ddd75001233e79e928c4dcfae6768af5790c.1327103792.git.joe@perches.com> <20120124014717.GA24204@andromeda.dapyr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120124014717.GA24204@andromeda.dapyr.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 21:47 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 04:01:12PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > It's equivalent to __printf, so prefer __scanf. > So ... looking at this patch it just seems to macro-fy the > __printf and __scanf attributes. It's just for __scanf. The __printf change is just a neatening/spacing change. > Is this required to make > cleanpatch.pl work easier? No. It's a trivial symmetry patch added to make fewer uses of __attribute__((format(...) similar to the __printf commit from awhile ago. commit b9075fa968a0a4347aef35e235e2995c0e57dddd > And there is also some checkpatch.pl features. Should that part > be in a seperate patch? I think it's OK to do the whole thing at once.