> -----Original Message----- > From: Roberts, William C [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 3:49 PM > To: Joe Perches <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; kernel- > [email protected] > Subject: [kernel-hardening] RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead > of %pK usage > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Perches [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM > > To: Roberts, William C <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; kernel- > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK > > usage > > > > (Adding back the cc's) > > > > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > No worries. > > > > No idea why it doesn't work for you. > > > > Maybe the hand applying was somehow faulty? > > > > > > > > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus' > > > > tree, but it seems to work. > > > > > > > > (on -linux) > > > > > > > > $ patch -p1 < cp_vsp.diff > > > > patching file scripts/checkpatch.pl Hunk #1 succeeded at 5634 > > > > (offset -36 lines). > > > > > > > > $ cat t_block.c > > > > { > > > > MY_DEBUG(drv->foo, > > > > "%pk", > > > > foo->boo); > > > > } > > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f t_block.c > > > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk' > > > > #2: FILE: t_block.c:2: > > > > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo, > > > > + "%pk", > > > > + foo->boo); > > > > > > > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 lines checked > > > > > > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to > > > > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or > > > > --fix-inplace. > > > > > > > > t_block.c has style problems, please review. > > > > > > > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report > > > > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > > > > > > > > Applied. It works fine with your example (see attached > > > 0001-tblock.patch) but it doesn't provide Output for me with > > > 0002-drv-hack.patch (attached as well) > > > > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0002-drv-hack.patch > > > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked > > > > > > 0002-drv-hack.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for > submission. > > > > > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tblock.patch > > > WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need > > updating? > > > #13: > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk' > > > #19: FILE: t_block.c:2: > > > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo, > > > + "%pk", > > > + foo->boo); > > > > > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 6 lines checked > > > > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to > > > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or > > > --fix-inplace. > > > > > > 0001-tblock.patch has style problems, please review. > > > > > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report > > > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > > > This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done on patches that > > add just a single multi-line statement. > > > > Andrew? Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately for patch > > contexts with a single multi-line statement? > > I'm for merging your patch as is, and then take up the fact that $stat is not > working correctly as a separate change, does that seem reasonable?
I haven't seen anything on list about your patch, are we kind of stuck or do you have some plan on adding your stat patch in the future?
