Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: ignore CamelCase for inttypes.h format specifiers
From: Scott Branden
Date: Wed Jun 10 2020 - 19:22:50 EST
Hi Joe,
On 2020-06-10 3:22 p.m., Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 14:48 -0700, Scott Branden wrote:
On 2020-06-10 2:09 p.m., Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 13:33 -0700, Scott Branden wrote:
Ignore CamelCase for inttypes.h for fixed integer types format specifiers.
(ex. PRIx32 for uint32_t).
Personally, I don't like those.
Checkpatch is run against a lot of code outside of the linux kernel but
following linux coding style.
I know. I don't have any strong feeling about this either.
But _this_ checkpatch is specifically for the linux-kernel.
I just don't want to encourage a bunch of uses of these
somewhat useless defines internal to linux-kernel sources.
It is already used in various code in the linux-kernel tree for tools to
work properly on different cpu architectures.
Use of inttypes.h does have its place.
So _this_ checkpatch shouldn't be complaining about them in the linux
repo either?
There is nothing personal about this, they are the format specifiers in
inttypes.h for fixed width types .
True. It's impersonal to me too.
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
@@ -5157,6 +5157,8 @@ sub process {
$var =~ /[A-Z][a-z]|[a-z][A-Z]/ &&
#Ignore Page<foo> variants
$var !~ /^(?:Clear|Set|TestClear|TestSet|)Page[A-Z]/ &&
+#Ignore inttypes.h scanf/printf format specifiers for fixed size integer types
+ $var !~ /^(?:PRI|SCN)[dxoui](8|16|32|64|PTR|MAX)?$/ &&
There are missing format specifiers.
If this is done, the test should be against a variable
Something like:
our $inttype_format = qr{(?x:
(?:PRI|SCN)
[diouxX]
(?:FAST|LEAST)?
(?:8|16|32|64|MAX|PTR)
};
btw: what about 24, 48, 96, 128 and 256?
#Ignore SI style variants like nS, mV and dB
#(ie: max_uV, regulator_min_uA_show, RANGE_mA_VALUE)
$var !~ /^(?:[a-z0-9_]*|[A-Z0-9_]*)?_?[a-z][A-Z](?:_[a-z0-9_]+|_[A-Z0-9_]+)?$/ &&