[PATCH v3 3/3] checkpatch: add virt barriers

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Michael,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 02:52:16PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 09:13 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > Add virt_ barriers to list of barriers to check for
>> > > presence of a comment.
>> []
>> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> []
>> > > @@ -5133,7 +5133,8 @@ sub process {
>> > >                 }x;
>> > >                 my $all_barriers = qr{
>> > >                         $barriers|
>> > > -                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
>> > > +                       smp_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)|
>> > > +                       virt_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
>> >
>> > Sorry I'm late to the party here, but would it make sense to write this as:
>> >
>> > (?:smp|virt)_(?:$smp_barrier_stems)
>>
>> Yes.  Perhaps the name might be better as barrier_stems.
>>
>> Also, ideally this would be longest match first or use \b
>> after the matches so that $all_barriers could work
>> successfully without a following \s*\(
>>
>> my $all_barriers = qr{
>>       (?:smp|virt)_(?:barrier_stems)|
>>       $barriers)
>> }x;
>>
>> or maybe add separate $smp_barriers and $virt_barriers
>>
>> <shrug>  it doesn't matter much in any case
>
> OK just to clarify - are you OK with merging the patch as is?
> Refactorings can come as patches on top if required.

I don't really care either way, I was just asking if it was possible.
If you don't see any value in that change, then don't make it.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/