On 12/13/20 3:25 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 11:21 -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >> On 12/2/20 2:34 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:04 PM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2020-11-10 at 14:00 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yeah, we could go through and remove %h and %hh to solve this, too, right? >>>> Yup. >>>> >>>> I think one of the checkpatch improvement mentees is adding >>>> some suggestion and I hope an automated fix mechanism for that. >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5e3265c241602bb54286fbaae9222070daa4768e.ca...@perches.com/ >>> + Tom, who's been looking at leveraging clang-tidy to automate such >>> treewide mechanical changes. >>> ex. https://reviews.llvm.org/D91789 >>> >>> See also commit cbacb5ab0aa0 ("docs: printk-formats: Stop encouraging >>> use of unnecessary %h[xudi] and %hh[xudi]") for a concise summary of >>> related context. >> I have posted the fixer here >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D93182 >> >> It catches about 200 problems in 100 files, I'll be posting these soon. > Thanks, but see below: > >> clang-tidy-fix's big difference over checkpatch is using the __printf(x,y) >> attribute to find the log functions. >> >> I will be doing a follow-on to add the missing __printf or __scanf's and >> rerunning the fixer. > scanf should not be tested because the %h use is required there.
Yes. I mean the clang-tidy check i am planning on writing will find missing __scanf as well as the __printf. The %h fixer only works on __printf. Tom > >
