From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] checkpatch: re-enable warnings about split long strings
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 18:21:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171002162106.GQ3871@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171002134624.GA10500@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:46:24PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:53:17PM +0200, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 08:37:49AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > The Linux kernel style policy about strings is that strings should
> > > be always put on one line. This makes sense since a typical use case
> > > is for a user to type the error message into a search engine or
> > > grep, and it won't be found if split across lines. This patch just
> > > re-enables that check.
> > >
> > > Yes, lots of DPDK code now splits strings, that doesn't make it
> > > right.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com> ---
> > > devtools/checkpatches.sh | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/devtools/checkpatches.sh b/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> > > index a56c41a301c0..3e6081dd673e 100755 ---
> > > a/devtools/checkpatches.sh +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh @@ -44,7
> > > +44,6 @@ options="$options --show-types" options="$options
> > > --ignore=LINUX_VERSION_CODE,FILE_PATH_CHANGES,\
> > > VOLATILE,PREFER_PACKED,PREFER_ALIGNED,PREFER_PRINTF,\
> > > PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES,BIT_MACRO,CONST_STRUCT,\
> > > -SPLIT_STRING,LONG_LINE_STRING,\
> > > LINE_SPACING,PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT,NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE,\
> > > NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPARISON_TO_NULL"
> >
> > I'm not sure, given that the main reason for splitting strings in the
> > first place is to avoid LONG_LINE_STRING warnings, I think we must
> > choose between the two options. If split strings are not allowed, then
> > long lines must be.
> >
> > Since checkpatches.sh is used by various automated scripts to complain
> > loudly about problems in submissions, the above change prevents
> > maintainers from writing long string at all (can't split and can't go
> > past 80 columns).
> >
> > As a result, they will be tempted to cripple their code with nasty
> > workarounds to shut up checkpatches.sh, we don't want that to happen.
> >
> > Also I think the reasons stated by original commit cf75514c8e2e are
> > still relevant. My vote would be to keep things as is.
> >
> In my experience, checkpatch is smart enough to recognise when a long
> line overflows the 80 character limit because of a single long string,
> so the two options are not mutually exclusive. In other words, long
> lines are not allowed except in the case where shortening the line
> involves splitting a string. There may be a small amount of work in
> getting checkpatch happy, i.e. by putting the string on a line on it's
> own, but we can indeed have our cake and eat it too in this case.
I can't seem to get around warnings without ignoring either SPLIT_STRING or
LONG_LINE_STRING as of Linux v4.14-rc3's checkpatch.pl. I think you can only
get around them by fooling it somehow. You really need to ignore at least
LONG_LINE_STRING to meet the requirements of the commit log.
However SPLIT_STRING still looks necessary to address part of cf75514c8e2e
("devtools: ignore warning on long log string"):
"...lines that make use of PRIx64 with string concatenation will still be
flagged if the beginning of the last string fragment begins after the 80
character threshold."
It's not all that uncommon in my opinion.
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-02 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-29 15:37 Stephen Hemminger
2017-10-02 10:01 ` Luca Boccassi
2017-10-02 11:53 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-10-02 13:46 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-10-02 16:21 ` Adrien Mazarguil [this message]
2017-10-03 10:38 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-10-03 10:56 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2019-03-28 19:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-03-28 19:02 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-03-28 19:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-03-28 19:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171002162106.GQ3871@6wind.com \
--to=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).