On Thu, 2018-07-05 at 11:19 -0700, Prakruthi Deepak Heragu wrote: > mb() API can relpace the dsb() API in the kernel code. So, dsb() usage > is discouraged. However, there are exceptions when dsb is used in a > variable or a function name. Exceptions are when 'dsb' is prefixed with > class [-_>*\.] and/or suffixed with class [-_\.;]. [] > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl [] > @@ -5372,6 +5372,12 @@ sub process { > "Avoid line continuations in quoted strings\n" . > $herecurr); > } > > +# dsb is too ARMish, and should usually be mb. > + if ($line =~ /[^-_>*\.]\bdsb\b[^-_\.;]/) { > + WARN("ARM_BARRIER", > + "Use of dsb is discouranged: prefer mb.\n" . > + $herecurr); > + }
This patch is whitespace damaged with a spelling error. Also, if this is reasonable test, and I don't know that it is, it should be cc'd to the linux-arm list linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org Also, I suggest 2 tests, one for .S files and another for .[ch] files, and this be made specific to arch/arm... files Something like: if ($realfile =~ @^arch/arm@ && ($realfile =~ /\.S$/ && $line =~ /\bdsb\b/) || ($realfile =~ /\.[ch]$/ && $line =~ /\bdsb\s*\(/)) { WARN("ARM_DSB", "Prefer mb over dsb as an ARM memory barrier\n" . $herecurr); } ARM people, is this reasonable?