On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:01:00 +0200 (MEST) Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Apr 27 2007 22:58, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > >--- checkpatch.pl.orig 2007-04-27 20:30:34.000000000 -0700 > >+++ checkpatch.pl 2007-04-27 22:54:42.000000000 -0700 > >@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ > > $warnings += search(qr/kernel_thread\(/, "Use kthread abstraction > > instead of kernel_thread()\n"); > > $warnings += search(qr/typedef/, "Do not add new typedefs.\n"); > > $warnings += search(qr/uint32_t/, "Incorrect type usage for kernel > > code. Use __u32 etc.\n"); > >- $warnings += search(qr/BUG(_ON)\(/, "Use WARN_ON & Recovery code rather > >than BUG() and BUG_ON()\n"); > >+ $warnings += search(qr/(?<!BUILD_)BUG(_ON)\(/, "Use WARN_ON & Recovery > >code rather than BUG() and BUG_ON()\n"); > > I wonder what the capture is for? > (?<!BUILD_)BUG(?:_ON) if you ask me :) > But you could also use... > qr/\bBUG_ON\(/ > which rules out a BUILD_BUG_ON, because _ does not constitute a word > boundary, since _ is in \w.
Ack, I added \b. Thanks. > And since when is uint32_t wrong? What makes u32 or __u32 better? > We have sprintf, (k)asprintf, abs(), etc. etc. etc. tons of functions > named similar to their ISO C counterparts, but when it comes to types, > we make an exception? --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** - 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/
