Dear checkpatch developers,
The coreboot project started using checkpatch.pl, and now some effort is going into fixing issues pointed out by `checkpatch.pl`. The file `src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c` in coreboot contains the code below. ``` 205 void (*acpi_do_wakeup)(uintptr_t vector, u32 backup_source, u32 backup_target, 206 u32 backup_size) asmlinkage = (void *)WAKEUP_BASE; ``` The warning is > WARNING: storage class should be at the beginning of the declaration which raised the question below [2]. > And I am waiting for someone to answer why checkpatch.pl claims > asmlinkage as a storage-class in the first place. In coreboot the macro is defined similarly to Linux. ``` #define asmlinkage __attribute__((regparm(0))) #define alwaysinline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) ``` In Linux, commit 9c0ca6f9 (update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10) seems to have introduced the check. The commit message contains “asmlinkage is also a storage type”. Furthermore, `checkpatch.pl` doesn’t seem to warn about the code below. ``` void __attribute__((weak)) mainboard_suspend_resume(void) ``` This raises the question below. > It appears coreboot proper mostly followed this placement for > function attributes before. It would be nice if we were consistent, > specially if checkpatch starts to complaint about these. Is there another reason, besides not having that implemented? I am looking forward to your answers. Kind regards, Paul [1] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/18865/1/src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c@205 [2] https://review.coreboot.org/18865/ [3] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/18865/1/src/arch/x86/acpi_s3.c@244
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot