(I guess I need to refresh my regular expression skills ...)
Thanks, this will be just great!
Dotan
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 6:27 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject:
In our code (I take it as an example), we used MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK,
So I guess that the regular expression that you mentioned will fail on it
(because the "_" is not allowed to be repeated).
So, I would change it a little bit to allow people to use underscore as a word
separator.
Thanks
and allow:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|
Thanks a lot for the quick (and great) response!
Dotan
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@
nal Message-
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after
> declarations" in a structure definition
>
&
arm_sn;
struct mlx5_rsc_debug *dbg;
int pid;
};
As you can see, this is a structure definition and IMHO the warning above is
false.
Thanks!
Dotan Barak
Sr. Staff Engineer, Windows verification
Mellanox Technologies
Beit Mellanox
Yokneam, 20692
Office: +972-74-7
;
struct mlx5_rsc_debug *dbg;
int pid;
};
snip end
As you can see, this is a structure definition and IMHO the warning above is
false.
Thanks!
Dotan Barak
Sr. Staff Engineer, Windows verification
Mellanox Technologies
Beit Mellanox
Yokneam, 20692
Office: +972-74
-Original Message-
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 4:36 PM
To: Dotan Barak
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about Missing blank line after
declarations in a structure definition
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 11:20
and allow:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|
Thanks a lot for the quick (and great) response!
Dotan
-Original Message-
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Dotan Barak
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In our code (I take it as an example), we used MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK,
So I guess that the regular expression that you mentioned will fail on it
(because the _ is not allowed to be repeated).
So, I would change it a little bit to allow people to use underscore as a word
separator.
Thanks
(I guess I need to refresh my regular expression skills ...)
Thanks, this will be just great!
Dotan
-Original Message-
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 6:27 PM
To: Dotan Barak
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl
Eric Dumazet wrote:
This is because on PPC architecture, address of a function points to a
small
data area (a function descriptor) where the caller can find
informations about :
- Address (in the text segment, so readonly) of the target function
- Address of the TOC for this function.
Eric Dumazet wrote:
This is because on PPC architecture, address of a function points to a
small
data area (a function descriptor) where the caller can find
informations about :
- Address (in the text segment, so readonly) of the target function
- Address of the TOC for this function.
Hi all.
I noticed that the code segment of the user level in PPC64 machines
is in a VMA with a write permission enabled.
I'm using the following machine attributes:
*
Host Name : mtlsqt185
Host Architecture : ppc64
Linux
Hi all.
I noticed that the code segment of the user level in PPC64 machines
is in a VMA with a write permission enabled.
I'm using the following machine attributes:
*
Host Name : mtlsqt185
Host Architecture : ppc64
Linux
14 matches
Mail list logo
