Minki/linux
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git synced 2024-11-24 21:21:41 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Documentation: coding-style: ask function-like macros to evaluate parameters

Browse Source 
Patch series "codingstyle: avoid unused parameters for a function-like
macro", v7.

A function-like macro could result in build warnings such as "unused
variable." This patchset updates the guidance to recommend always using a
static inline function instead and also provides checkpatch support for
this new rule.


This patch (of 2):

Recent commit 77292bb8ca ("crypto: scomp - remove memcpy if
sg_nents is 1 and pages are lowmem") leads to warnings on xtensa
and loongarch,
   In file included from crypto/scompress.c:12:
   include/crypto/scatterwalk.h: In function 'scatterwalk_pagedone':
   include/crypto/scatterwalk.h:76:30: warning: variable 'page' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
      76 |                 struct page *page;
         |                              ^~~~
   crypto/scompress.c: In function 'scomp_acomp_comp_decomp':
>> crypto/scompress.c:174:38: warning: unused variable 'dst_page' [-Wunused-variable]
     174 |                         struct page *dst_page = sg_page(req->dst);
         |

The reason is that flush_dcache_page() is implemented as a noop
macro on these platforms as below,

 #define flush_dcache_page(page) do { } while (0)

The driver code, for itself, seems be quite innocent and placing
maybe_unused seems pointless,

 struct page *dst_page = sg_page(req->dst);

 for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++)
 	flush_dcache_page(dst_page + i);

And it should be independent of architectural implementation
differences.

Let's provide guidance on coding style for requesting parameter
evaluation or proposing the migration to a static inline
function.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240507032757.146386-1-21cnbao@gmail.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240507032757.146386-2-21cnbao@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Suggested-by: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Xining Xu <mac.xxn@outlook.com>
Cc: Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Barry Song 2024-05-07 15:27:56 +12:00 committed by Andrew Morton
parent 33580d667b
commit 6813216bbd
1 changed files with 23 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
View File

@ -827,6 +827,29 @@ Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while block:
do_this(b, c); \
} while (0)
Function-like macros with unused parameters should be replaced by static
inline functions to avoid the issue of unused variables:
.. code-block:: c
static inline void fun(struct foo *foo)
{
}
Due to historical practices, many files still employ the "cast to (void)"
approach to evaluate parameters. However, this method is not advisable.
Inline functions address the issue of "expression with side effects
evaluated more than once", circumvent unused-variable problems, and
are generally better documented than macros for some reason.
.. code-block:: c
/*
* Avoid doing this whenever possible and instead opt for static
* inline functions
*/
#define macrofun(foo) do { (void) (foo); } while (0)
Things to avoid when using macros:
1) macros that affect control flow: