Re: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:06:09 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did > > attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then > > using the git blame engine to attribute each "failure" to a particular > > commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer > > about violations there-in. Wouldn't it be easier to pass each commit through checkpatch and email the committer if there is a problem? Each commit can be viewed as a standalone patch afterall; what does blame add? > The question is, whether we can convince the git developers to integrate > it. When a commit happens and checkpatch.pl is in scripts/, then run the > patch through it before doing the actual commit. Definitely the way to go. I'm pretty sure the Git guys would agree to distribute checkpatch.pl along with the existing pre-commit hook. So at least enabling checkpatch would be trivial for those convinced to use it. Sean - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > runs the thing. > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) One could make check patch create a signature hashing a check patch key and the patch one could put in the post like a signed-off-by: thing. checkpatch-sig : 2f818bcf0c2333a461affc4a170814f23adf2e08 this puts the burden on the sender to run the thing. --mgross - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:53:47 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > > runs the thing. > > > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) > > That shouldn't be too hard. checkpatch has been subscribed since birth > but short circuiting the replies to me only. > > I guess the main question is whether to reply-all or reply just to the > sender when commenting on patches. Perhaps for the sanity of the rest > of the world, just the sender makes most sense. For sure. > > (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. > > You wouldn't _believe_...) > > It should pick up both of these, the word-wrapping is already there as > we detect lines within patch segments which don't start '[ +-]', the > tab-expanded should be picked up as every line would be "don't use > spaces use tabs for indent". OK. Often patches are wordwrapped only in the header: --- old/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c2007-04-26 12:02:46.0 -0400 +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c 2007-04-29 08:29:27.0 -0400 @@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ ap->ops->irq_on(ap); comes through as --- old/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c2007-04-26 12:02:46.0 -0400 +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c 2007-04-29 08:29:27.0 -0400 @@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ ap->ops->irq_on(ap); and the rest of the patch is good. Yup, fooled you ;) - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 09:56 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > > > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular > > > ;) > > > > We should wire it up to git-commit as well. A lot of that comes in via > > git subsystems. > > The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did > attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then > using the git blame engine to attribute each "failure" to a particular > commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer > about violations there-in. > > I'll try and find some time to get this bit polished and at least > emailing me. The question is, whether we can convince the git developers to integrate it. When a commit happens and checkpatch.pl is in scripts/, then run the patch through it before doing the actual commit. tglx - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:30:37 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > > runs the thing. > > i automatically run it for every patch i submit or push out via git. you're hardly anyone ;) > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which > > monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll > > be popular ;) > > heh ;-) It could be automated for patches that are sent out with a > Signed-off-by [or a Reviewed-by] line. If you send a SoB patch that is > broken, prepare to get a nastygram. (Initially i'd suggest the nastygram > to Cc: to a different email list, not lkml.) I was thinking it would reply to the sender only. I have this vision of dragging my sorry butt to the keyboard in the morning to be greeted by the usual shower of tab-replaced, space-stuffed wordwrappery, except now each one is followed ten minutes later by a fixed up version. One can dream. - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:32:38AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 01:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > > runs the thing. > > Sigh, I forgot that perl is write only. :) > > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) > > We should wire it up to git-commit as well. A lot of that comes in via > git subsystems. The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then using the git blame engine to attribute each "failure" to a particular commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer about violations there-in. I'll try and find some time to get this bit polished and at least emailing me. -apw - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > runs the thing. > > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) That shouldn't be too hard. checkpatch has been subscribed since birth but short circuiting the replies to me only. I guess the main question is whether to reply-all or reply just to the sender when commenting on patches. Perhaps for the sanity of the rest of the world, just the sender makes most sense. > (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. > You wouldn't _believe_...) It should pick up both of these, the word-wrapping is already there as we detect lines within patch segments which don't start '[ +-]', the tab-expanded should be picked up as every line would be "don't use spaces use tabs for indent". -apw - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 01:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > runs the thing. Sigh, I forgot that perl is write only. :) > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors > the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) We should wire it up to git-commit as well. A lot of that comes in via git subsystems. > (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. > You wouldn't _believe_...) I know ... tglx - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); > > That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone > runs the thing. i automatically run it for every patch i submit or push out via git. > I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which > monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll > be popular ;) heh ;-) It could be automated for patches that are sent out with a Signed-off-by [or a Reviewed-by] line. If you send a SoB patch that is broken, prepare to get a nastygram. (Initially i'd suggest the nastygram to Cc: to a different email list, not lkml.) Ingo - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > > > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. You wouldn't _believe_...) - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:36 +0200, roel wrote: > Replace some SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED with DEFINE_SPINLOCK > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andy, Randy, can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? > -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); This code was introduced in June 2007, almost two years after the first big DEFINE_SPINLOCK cleanup. Sigh. Thanks, tglx - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 09:56 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote: I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) We should wire it up to git-commit as well. A lot of that comes in via git subsystems. The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then using the git blame engine to attribute each failure to a particular commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer about violations there-in. I'll try and find some time to get this bit polished and at least emailing me. The question is, whether we can convince the git developers to integrate it. When a commit happens and checkpatch.pl is in scripts/, then run the patch through it before doing the actual commit. tglx - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) That shouldn't be too hard. checkpatch has been subscribed since birth but short circuiting the replies to me only. I guess the main question is whether to reply-all or reply just to the sender when commenting on patches. Perhaps for the sanity of the rest of the world, just the sender makes most sense. (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. You wouldn't _believe_...) It should pick up both of these, the word-wrapping is already there as we detect lines within patch segments which don't start '[ +-]', the tab-expanded should be picked up as every line would be don't use spaces use tabs for indent. -apw - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) One could make check patch create a signature hashing a check patch key and the patch one could put in the post like a signed-off-by: thing. checkpatch-sig : 2f818bcf0c2333a461affc4a170814f23adf2e08 this puts the burden on the sender to run the thing. --mgross - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:53:47 +0100 Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:26:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) That shouldn't be too hard. checkpatch has been subscribed since birth but short circuiting the replies to me only. I guess the main question is whether to reply-all or reply just to the sender when commenting on patches. Perhaps for the sanity of the rest of the world, just the sender makes most sense. For sure. (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. You wouldn't _believe_...) It should pick up both of these, the word-wrapping is already there as we detect lines within patch segments which don't start '[ +-]', the tab-expanded should be picked up as every line would be don't use spaces use tabs for indent. OK. Often patches are wordwrapped only in the header: --- old/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c2007-04-26 12:02:46.0 -0400 +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c 2007-04-29 08:29:27.0 -0400 @@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ ap-ops-irq_on(ap); comes through as --- old/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c2007-04-26 12:02:46.0 -0400 +++ linux/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c 2007-04-29 08:29:27.0 -0400 @@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ ap-ops-irq_on(ap); and the rest of the patch is good. tests it Yup, fooled you ;) - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:30:37 +0200 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. i automatically run it for every patch i submit or push out via git. you're hardly anyone ;) I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) heh ;-) It could be automated for patches that are sent out with a Signed-off-by [or a Reviewed-by] line. If you send a SoB patch that is broken, prepare to get a nastygram. (Initially i'd suggest the nastygram to Cc: to a different email list, not lkml.) I was thinking it would reply to the sender only. I have this vision of dragging my sorry butt to the keyboard in the morning to be greeted by the usual shower of tab-replaced, space-stuffed wordwrappery, except now each one is followed ten minutes later by a fixed up version. One can dream. - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 01:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. Sigh, I forgot that perl is write only. :) I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) We should wire it up to git-commit as well. A lot of that comes in via git subsystems. (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. You wouldn't _believe_...) I know ... tglx - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. i automatically run it for every patch i submit or push out via git. I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) heh ;-) It could be automated for patches that are sent out with a Signed-off-by [or a Reviewed-by] line. If you send a SoB patch that is broken, prepare to get a nastygram. (Initially i'd suggest the nastygram to Cc: to a different email list, not lkml.) Ingo - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:36 +0200, roel wrote: Replace some SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED with DEFINE_SPINLOCK Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy, Randy, can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); This code was introduced in June 2007, almost two years after the first big DEFINE_SPINLOCK cleanup. Sigh. Thanks, tglx - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) (I'd love it if it could detect wordwrapped and tab-expanded patches, too. You wouldn't _believe_...) - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:32:38AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 01:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:17:30 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can we please add this to checkpatch.pl ? -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); That check is already in checkpatch. Problem is that hardly anyone runs the thing. Sigh, I forgot that perl is write only. :) I think we're ready to wire checkpatch up to a email robot which monitors the mailing lists and sends people nastygrams. I bet that'll be popular ;) We should wire it up to git-commit as well. A lot of that comes in via git subsystems. The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then using the git blame engine to attribute each failure to a particular commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer about violations there-in. I'll try and find some time to get this bit polished and at least emailing me. -apw - 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: [PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:06:09 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with git-commit is who's repo to add the hook to. I did attempt to do this by picking up each of linus' main releases and then using the git blame engine to attribute each failure to a particular commit. The plan then would be to send a nasty-gram to the committer about violations there-in. Wouldn't it be easier to pass each commit through checkpatch and email the committer if there is a problem? Each commit can be viewed as a standalone patch afterall; what does blame add? The question is, whether we can convince the git developers to integrate it. When a commit happens and checkpatch.pl is in scripts/, then run the patch through it before doing the actual commit. Definitely the way to go. I'm pretty sure the Git guys would agree to distribute checkpatch.pl along with the existing pre-commit hook. So at least enabling checkpatch would be trivial for those convinced to use it. Sean - 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/
[PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
Replace some SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED with DEFINE_SPINLOCK Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c b/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c index 09fa007..059eade 100644 --- a/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c +++ b/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static void pci_proc_init(void) } #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS && PCI_COUNTERS */ -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); /* * diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c index d5fd390..cd2766e 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ #include #include -static spinlock_t slice_convert_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(slice_convert_lock); #ifdef DEBUG diff --git a/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c b/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c index 309d279..31dc7a6 100644 --- a/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c +++ b/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static int nowayout = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT; static struct watchdog_info bfin_wdt_info; static unsigned long open_check; static char expect_close; -static spinlock_t bfin_wdt_spinlock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bfin_wdt_spinlock); /** * bfin_wdt_keepalive - Keep the Userspace Watchdog Alive diff --git a/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c b/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c index 98fd985..36c747b 100644 --- a/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c +++ b/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ void hpsb_selfid_complete(struct hpsb_host *host, int phyid, int isroot) highlevel_host_reset(host); } -static spinlock_t pending_packets_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pending_packets_lock); /** * hpsb_packet_sent - notify core of sending a packet diff --git a/fs/sysfs/dir.c b/fs/sysfs/dir.c index 83e76b3..94fd78f 100644 --- a/fs/sysfs/dir.c +++ b/fs/sysfs/dir.c @@ -15,9 +15,9 @@ #include "sysfs.h" DEFINE_MUTEX(sysfs_mutex); -spinlock_t sysfs_assoc_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sysfs_assoc_lock); -static spinlock_t sysfs_ino_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sysfs_ino_lock); static DEFINE_IDA(sysfs_ino_ida); /** - 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/
[PATCH] spin_lock_unlocked cleanups
Replace some SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED with DEFINE_SPINLOCK Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- diff --git a/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c b/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c index 09fa007..059eade 100644 --- a/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c +++ b/arch/mips/pci/ops-pmcmsp.c @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static void pci_proc_init(void) } #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS PCI_COUNTERS */ -spinlock_t bpci_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bpci_lock); /* * diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c index d5fd390..cd2766e 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ #include asm/mmu.h #include asm/spu.h -static spinlock_t slice_convert_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(slice_convert_lock); #ifdef DEBUG diff --git a/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c b/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c index 309d279..31dc7a6 100644 --- a/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c +++ b/drivers/char/watchdog/bfin_wdt.c @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static int nowayout = WATCHDOG_NOWAYOUT; static struct watchdog_info bfin_wdt_info; static unsigned long open_check; static char expect_close; -static spinlock_t bfin_wdt_spinlock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bfin_wdt_spinlock); /** * bfin_wdt_keepalive - Keep the Userspace Watchdog Alive diff --git a/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c b/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c index 98fd985..36c747b 100644 --- a/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c +++ b/drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_core.c @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ void hpsb_selfid_complete(struct hpsb_host *host, int phyid, int isroot) highlevel_host_reset(host); } -static spinlock_t pending_packets_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pending_packets_lock); /** * hpsb_packet_sent - notify core of sending a packet diff --git a/fs/sysfs/dir.c b/fs/sysfs/dir.c index 83e76b3..94fd78f 100644 --- a/fs/sysfs/dir.c +++ b/fs/sysfs/dir.c @@ -15,9 +15,9 @@ #include sysfs.h DEFINE_MUTEX(sysfs_mutex); -spinlock_t sysfs_assoc_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sysfs_assoc_lock); -static spinlock_t sysfs_ino_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sysfs_ino_lock); static DEFINE_IDA(sysfs_ino_ida); /** - 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/
