On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 12:00 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 02:35:39 -0800 > Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > Add a test for reuse of macro arguments to highlight > > any possible side-effects from this reuse. > > > > Avoid this check on token name pasting and when the > > argument is used in a typeof or a __builtin. > > Does this mean that if I do > > #define foo(a) bar(a, a) > > that checkpatch will not generate a warning unless I give it > "--strict"? If so: whaaah! I want that warning to come out by > default.
Well, that was the intent, yes. I wanted to avoid a bunch of people "improving" simple macros with a normal checkpatch run on files like include/linux/kernel.h > Not being totally lazy, I tried it myself but my perl v5.10.1 had > conniptions over this patch: Because I had originally used ERROR but decided to use the incorrect form of CHECK instead of CHK when I submitted the patch. Sorry. Anyway, do try it on include/linux files with -f and see if you think it's really appropriate to have the thing report this type of error. Dunno. Maybe it's appropriate to warn on .diff/.patch files but only emit the message on checkpatch -f --strict uses. I generally don't like different behavior based on runtime input. Shrug. Who knows what's right here. -- 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/
