On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 08:01 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:52:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:11:16 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > +static int pci_enable_vfs_overlay(struct pci_dev *dev) { return 0; }
> > > +static void pci_disable_vfs_overlay(struct pci_dev *dev) {}
> >
> > s/static /static inline /
>
> Thanks a lot, I think that we should extend checkpatch.pl to catch such
> mistakes.
Who is this "we" you refer to? ;)
> How hard is it to extend checkpatch.pl to do regexp and warn if in *.h file
> someone declared function with implementation but didn't add "inline" word?
Something like this seems reasonable and catches these instances in
include/linux/*.h
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f include/linux/*.h --types=static_inline --terse
--nosummary
include/linux/dma-mapping.h:203: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/genl_magic_func.h:55: WARNING: static function definition might
be better as static inline
include/linux/genl_magic_func.h:78: WARNING: static function definition might
be better as static inline
include/linux/kernel.h:670: WARNING: static function definition might be better
as static inline
include/linux/kprobes.h:213: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/kprobes.h:231: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/kprobes.h:511: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/skb_array.h:185: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/slab.h:606: WARNING: static function definition might be better
as static inline
include/linux/stop_machine.h:62: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h:850: WARNING: static function definition might be
better as static inline
include/linux/zstd.h:95: WARNING: static function definition might be better as
static inline
include/linux/zstd.h:106: WARNING: static function definition might be better
as static inline
A false positive exists when __must_check is used between
static and inline. It's an unusual and IMO not a preferred use.
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 4f8494527139..0ac366481962 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -4451,6 +4451,18 @@ sub process {
}
}
+# check for static function definitions without inline in .h files
+# only works for static in column 1 and avoids multiline macro definitions
+ if ($realfile =~ /\.h$/ &&
+ defined($stat) &&
+ $stat =~
/^\+static(?!\s+(?:$Inline|union|struct))\b.*\{.*\}\s*$/s &&
+ $line =~ /^\+static(?!\s+(?:$Inline|union|struct))\b/ &&
+ $line !~ /\\$/) {
+ WARN("STATIC_INLINE",
+ "static function definition might be better as
static inline\n" .
+ $herecurr);
+ }
+
# check for non-global char *foo[] = {"bar", ...} declarations.
if ($line =~
/^.\s+(?:static\s+|const\s+)?char\s+\*\s*\w+\s*\[\s*\]\s*=\s*\{/) {
WARN("STATIC_CONST_CHAR_ARRAY",
