RE: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after declarations" in a structure definition
(I guess I need to refresh my regular expression skills ...)
Thanks, this will be just great!
Dotan
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 6:27 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after
> declarations" in a structure definition
>
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 15:19 +, Dotan Barak wrote:
> > In our code (I take it as an example), we used
> > MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK, So I guess that the regular expression
> > that you mentioned will fail on it (because the "_" is not allowed to be
> repeated).
> >
> > So, I would change it a little bit to allow people to use underscore as a
> > word
> separator.
> []
> > > Maybe:
> > >
> > > (?:$Storage\s+)(?:[A-Z_][A-Z0-9]+_){0,2}(?:DEFINE|DECLARE)(?:_[A-Z0-
> > > 9]+){1,2}
>
> What I suggested should allow any of:
>
> DECLARE_FOO
> _FOO_DEFINE_BAR
> FOO_BAR_DEFINE_BAZ
> FOO_BAR_DECLARE_BAZ_QUX
>
> where FOO/BAR/BAZ/QUX can also have digits
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after declarations" in a structure definition
In our code (I take it as an example), we used MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK,
So I guess that the regular expression that you mentioned will fail on it
(because the "_" is not allowed to be repeated).
So, I would change it a little bit to allow people to use underscore as a word
separator.
Thanks
Dotan
> >
> > The following change worked for me:
> > (?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z_]*\s*\(|
> >
> > But, maybe it is better to be even more general and allow:
> > (?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|
>
> Maybe:
>
> (?:$Storage\s+)(?:[A-Z_][A-Z0-9]+_){0,2}(?:DEFINE|DECLARE)(?:_[A-Z0-
> 9]+){1,2}
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after declarations" in a structure definition
I think that allowing a prefix is reasonable (to allow modules to add more
flexibility).
I tried the suggested change and it still didn't work for me.
The following change worked for me:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z_]*\s*\(|
But, maybe it is better to be even more general and allow:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|
Thanks a lot for the quick (and great) response!
Dotan
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after
> declarations" in a structure definition
>
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 14:14 +, Dotan Barak wrote:
> > Hi Joe.
> >
> > The patch that you mentioned solved most of the issues, thanks!
> >
> > However, there is still one more warning of this type within a struct
> declaration.
> >
> > # ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> >
> > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> > #508: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h:508:
> > + struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
> > + MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
> >
> >
> >
> > struct mlx5_priv {
> > charname[MLX5_MAX_NAME_LEN];
> > struct mlx5_eq_tableeq_table;
> > struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
> > MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
>
> MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL is not a "normal" DECLARE macro.
>
> Perhaps the exception for the DECLARE_ declaration macros in the
> exceptions list:
>
> (?:$Storage\s+)?(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(|
>
> could be expanded to:
>
> (?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(|
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after declarations" in a structure definition
Hi Joe.
The patch that you mentioned solved most of the issues, thanks!
However, there is still one more warning of this type within a struct
declaration.
# ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#508: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h:508:
+ struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
+ MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
struct mlx5_priv {
charname[MLX5_MAX_NAME_LEN];
struct mlx5_eq_tableeq_table;
struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
/* pages stuff */
struct workqueue_struct *pg_wq;
struct rb_root page_root;
int fw_pages;
int reg_pages;
struct list_headfree_list;
Thanks
Dotan
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after
> declarations" in a structure definition
>
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 11:20 +, Dotan Barak wrote:
> > Hi Joe.
> >
> > Thanks for fixing the issue that I reported about.
> >
> > It seems that even after your fix, there is still a false warning of
> > "Missing
> blank line after declarations".
> >
> > I executed checkpatch.pl on a header file that exists in the Linux tree:
> > # ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h
> >
> > And got the following warning:
> >
> > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> > #49: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h:49:
> > + int irqn;
> > + void (*comp)(struct mlx5_core_cq *);
> []
> > As you can see, this is a structure definition and IMHO the warning above is
> false.
>
> The version in Linus' tree has a defect where this test doesn't recognize
> function pointer declarations.
>
> This is fixed in -next since June, but it takes awhile to get into Linus'
> tree.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/6/426
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after declarations" in a structure definition
Hi Joe.
Thanks for fixing the issue that I reported about.
It seems that even after your fix, there is still a false warning of "Missing
blank line after declarations".
I executed checkpatch.pl on a header file that exists in the Linux tree:
# ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h
And got the following warning:
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#49: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h:49:
+ int irqn;
+ void (*comp)(struct mlx5_core_cq *);
Here is the structure that checkpatch.pl is complaining about:
struct mlx5_core_cq {
u32 cqn;
int cqe_sz;
__be32 *set_ci_db;
__be32 *arm_db;
atomic_trefcount;
struct completion free;
unsignedvector;
int irqn;
void (*comp)(struct mlx5_core_cq *);
void (*event) (struct mlx5_core_cq *, enum mlx5_event);
struct mlx5_uar*uar;
u32 cons_index;
unsignedarm_sn;
struct mlx5_rsc_debug *dbg;
int pid;
};
As you can see, this is a structure definition and IMHO the warning above is
false.
Thanks!
Dotan Barak
Sr. Staff Engineer, Windows verification
Mellanox Technologies
Beit Mellanox
Yokneam, 20692
Office: +972-74-7236271
Fax: +972-4-9593245
www.mellanox.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after declarations in a structure definition
Hi Joe.
Thanks for fixing the issue that I reported about.
It seems that even after your fix, there is still a false warning of Missing
blank line after declarations.
I executed checkpatch.pl on a header file that exists in the Linux tree:
# ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h
And got the following warning:
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#49: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h:49:
+ int irqn;
+ void (*comp)(struct mlx5_core_cq *);
Here is the structure that checkpatch.pl is complaining about:
snip start
struct mlx5_core_cq {
u32 cqn;
int cqe_sz;
__be32 *set_ci_db;
__be32 *arm_db;
atomic_trefcount;
struct completion free;
unsignedvector;
int irqn;
void (*comp)(struct mlx5_core_cq *);
void (*event) (struct mlx5_core_cq *, enum mlx5_event);
struct mlx5_uar*uar;
u32 cons_index;
unsignedarm_sn;
struct mlx5_rsc_debug *dbg;
int pid;
};
snip end
As you can see, this is a structure definition and IMHO the warning above is
false.
Thanks!
Dotan Barak
Sr. Staff Engineer, Windows verification
Mellanox Technologies
Beit Mellanox
Yokneam, 20692
Office: +972-74-7236271
Fax: +972-4-9593245
www.mellanox.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after declarations in a structure definition
Hi Joe.
The patch that you mentioned solved most of the issues, thanks!
However, there is still one more warning of this type within a struct
declaration.
# ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#508: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h:508:
+ struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
+ MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
snip start
struct mlx5_priv {
charname[MLX5_MAX_NAME_LEN];
struct mlx5_eq_tableeq_table;
struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
/* pages stuff */
struct workqueue_struct *pg_wq;
struct rb_root page_root;
int fw_pages;
int reg_pages;
struct list_headfree_list;
snip end
Thanks
Dotan
-Original Message-
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 4:36 PM
To: Dotan Barak
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after
declarations in a structure definition
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 11:20 +, Dotan Barak wrote:
Hi Joe.
Thanks for fixing the issue that I reported about.
It seems that even after your fix, there is still a false warning of
Missing
blank line after declarations.
I executed checkpatch.pl on a header file that exists in the Linux tree:
# ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h
And got the following warning:
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#49: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/cq.h:49:
+ int irqn;
+ void (*comp)(struct mlx5_core_cq *);
[]
As you can see, this is a structure definition and IMHO the warning above is
false.
The version in Linus' tree has a defect where this test doesn't recognize
function pointer declarations.
This is fixed in -next since June, but it takes awhile to get into Linus'
tree.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/6/426
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after declarations in a structure definition
I think that allowing a prefix is reasonable (to allow modules to add more
flexibility).
I tried the suggested change and it still didn't work for me.
The following change worked for me:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z_]*\s*\(|
But, maybe it is better to be even more general and allow:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|
Thanks a lot for the quick (and great) response!
Dotan
-Original Message-
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Dotan Barak
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after
declarations in a structure definition
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 14:14 +, Dotan Barak wrote:
Hi Joe.
The patch that you mentioned solved most of the issues, thanks!
However, there is still one more warning of this type within a struct
declaration.
# ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#508: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h:508:
+ struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
+ MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
snip start
struct mlx5_priv {
charname[MLX5_MAX_NAME_LEN];
struct mlx5_eq_tableeq_table;
struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari;
MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL is not a normal DECLARE macro.
Perhaps the exception for the DECLARE_FOO declaration macros in the
exceptions list:
(?:$Storage\s+)?(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(|
could be expanded to:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(|
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after declarations in a structure definition
In our code (I take it as an example), we used MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK,
So I guess that the regular expression that you mentioned will fail on it
(because the _ is not allowed to be repeated).
So, I would change it a little bit to allow people to use underscore as a word
separator.
Thanks
Dotan
The following change worked for me:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z_]*\s*\(|
But, maybe it is better to be even more general and allow:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|
Maybe:
(?:$Storage\s+)(?:[A-Z_][A-Z0-9]+_){0,2}(?:DEFINE|DECLARE)(?:_[A-Z0-
9]+){1,2}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after declarations in a structure definition
(I guess I need to refresh my regular expression skills ...)
Thanks, this will be just great!
Dotan
-Original Message-
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 6:27 PM
To: Dotan Barak
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after
declarations in a structure definition
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 15:19 +, Dotan Barak wrote:
In our code (I take it as an example), we used
MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK, So I guess that the regular expression
that you mentioned will fail on it (because the _ is not allowed to be
repeated).
So, I would change it a little bit to allow people to use underscore as a
word
separator.
[]
Maybe:
(?:$Storage\s+)(?:[A-Z_][A-Z0-9]+_){0,2}(?:DEFINE|DECLARE)(?:_[A-Z0-
9]+){1,2}
What I suggested should allow any of:
DECLARE_FOO
_FOO_DEFINE_BAR
FOO_BAR_DEFINE_BAZ
FOO_BAR_DECLARE_BAZ_QUX
where FOO/BAR/BAZ/QUX can also have digits
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The code segment of the user level in PPC64 are in VMAs with write permissions
Eric Dumazet wrote: This is because on PPC architecture, address of a function points to a small data area (a function descriptor) where the caller can find informations about : - Address (in the text segment, so readonly) of the target function - Address of the TOC for this function. http://www.linux-foundation.org/spec/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi-1.9.html#FUNC-ADDRESS thank you very much for clearing this issue. Dotan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The code segment of the user level in PPC64 are in VMAs with write permissions
Eric Dumazet wrote: This is because on PPC architecture, address of a function points to a small data area (a function descriptor) where the caller can find informations about : - Address (in the text segment, so readonly) of the target function - Address of the TOC for this function. http://www.linux-foundation.org/spec/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi-1.9.html#FUNC-ADDRESS thank you very much for clearing this issue. Dotan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
The code segment of the user level in PPC64 are in VMAs with write permissions
Hi all. I noticed that the code segment of the user level in PPC64 machines is in a VMA with a write permission enabled. I'm using the following machine attributes: * Host Name : mtlsqt185 Host Architecture : ppc64 Linux Distribution: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 (ppc) VERSION = 10 PATCHLEVEL = 1 Kernel Version: 2.6.16.53-0.16-ppc64 GCC Version : gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) Memory size : 1740232 kB Number of CPUs: 8 cpu MHz : 4005.00MHz Driver Version: OFED-1.2.5.4-20071210-0614 HCA ID(s) : mlx4_0 HCA model(s) : 25418 FW version(s) : 2.3.906 Board(s) : IBM08A001 * I printed the address of a function in my program and i got the value 0x1005ac80. I printed the VMAs in my process and i got the following output: mtlsqt185:~ # cat /proc/17366/maps 0010-00103000 r-xp 0010 00:00 0 1000-1004a000 r-xp 08:03 1063667 /tmp/tsscr/svn.mlx_tp/branches/ofed1.2.5/gen2/userspace/useraccess/gen2_basic/gen2_basic 1005a000-1005e000 rw-p 0004a000 08:03 1063667 /tmp/tsscr/svn.mlx_tp/branches/ofed1.2.5/gen2/userspace/useraccess/gen2_basic/gen2_basic 1005e000-1015f000 rw-p 1005e000 00:00 0 [heap] Is this is a security hole (any virus can change the code in the code segment ...) can you please CC me the answers o this question? thanks Dotan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
The code segment of the user level in PPC64 are in VMAs with write permissions
Hi all. I noticed that the code segment of the user level in PPC64 machines is in a VMA with a write permission enabled. I'm using the following machine attributes: * Host Name : mtlsqt185 Host Architecture : ppc64 Linux Distribution: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 (ppc) VERSION = 10 PATCHLEVEL = 1 Kernel Version: 2.6.16.53-0.16-ppc64 GCC Version : gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) Memory size : 1740232 kB Number of CPUs: 8 cpu MHz : 4005.00MHz Driver Version: OFED-1.2.5.4-20071210-0614 HCA ID(s) : mlx4_0 HCA model(s) : 25418 FW version(s) : 2.3.906 Board(s) : IBM08A001 * I printed the address of a function in my program and i got the value 0x1005ac80. I printed the VMAs in my process and i got the following output: mtlsqt185:~ # cat /proc/17366/maps 0010-00103000 r-xp 0010 00:00 0 1000-1004a000 r-xp 08:03 1063667 /tmp/tsscr/svn.mlx_tp/branches/ofed1.2.5/gen2/userspace/useraccess/gen2_basic/gen2_basic 1005a000-1005e000 rw-p 0004a000 08:03 1063667 /tmp/tsscr/svn.mlx_tp/branches/ofed1.2.5/gen2/userspace/useraccess/gen2_basic/gen2_basic 1005e000-1015f000 rw-p 1005e000 00:00 0 [heap] Is this is a security hole (any virus can change the code in the code segment ...) can you please CC me the answers o this question? thanks Dotan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
