> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.robe...@intel.com> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; a...@canonical.com; kernel- > harden...@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > (Adding back the cc's) > > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote: > > <snip> > > > No worries. > > > No idea why it doesn't work for you. > > > Maybe the hand applying was somehow > > > faulty? > > > > > > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus' > > > tree, but it seems to work. > > > > > > (on -linux) > > > > > > $ patch -p1 < cp_vsp.diff > > > patching file scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 5634 (offset -36 lines). > > > > > > $ cat t_block.c > > > { > > > MY_DEBUG(drv->foo, > > > "%pk", > > > foo->boo); > > > } > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f t_block.c > > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk' > > > #2: FILE: t_block.c:2: > > > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo, > > > + "%pk", > > > + foo->boo); > > > > > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 lines checked > > > > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to > > > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or > > > --fix-inplace. > > > > > > t_block.c has style problems, please review. > > > > > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report > > > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > > > > > Applied. It works fine with your example (see attached > > 0001-tblock.patch) but it doesn't provide Output for me with > > 0002-drv-hack.patch (attached as well) > > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0002-drv-hack.patch > > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked > > > > 0002-drv-hack.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for > > submission. > > > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tblock.patch > > WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need > updating? > > #13: > > new file mode 100644 > > > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk' > > #19: FILE: t_block.c:2: > > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo, > > + "%pk", > > + foo->boo); > > > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 6 lines checked > > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to > > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or > > --fix-inplace. > > > > 0001-tblock.patch has style problems, please review. > > > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report > > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done on patches that add just a > single multi-line statement. > > Andrew? Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately for patch contexts > with a single multi-line statement?
I'm for merging your patch as is, and then take up the fact that $stat is not working correctly as a separate change, does that seem reasonable?
