* [PATCH v7 1/2] Documentation: coding-style: ask function-like macros to evaluate parameters
2024-05-07 3:27 [PATCH v7 0/2] codingstyle: avoid unused parameters for a function-like macro Barry Song
@ 2024-05-07 3:27 ` Barry Song
2024-05-07 3:27 ` [PATCH v7 2/2] scripts: checkpatch: check unused parameters for function-like macro Barry Song
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Barry Song @ 2024-05-07 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm, linux-doc
Cc: apw, broonie, chenhuacai, chris, corbet, dwaipayanray1, herbert,
joe, linux-kernel, linux, lukas.bulwahn, mac.xxn, sfr,
v-songbaohua, workflows, Max Filippov
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Recent commit 77292bb8ca69c80 ("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.
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>
---
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index 9c7cf7347394..7e768c65aa92 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -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:
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* [PATCH v7 2/2] scripts: checkpatch: check unused parameters for function-like macro
2024-05-07 3:27 [PATCH v7 0/2] codingstyle: avoid unused parameters for a function-like macro Barry Song
2024-05-07 3:27 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] Documentation: coding-style: ask function-like macros to evaluate parameters Barry Song
@ 2024-05-07 3:27 ` Barry Song
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Barry Song @ 2024-05-07 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm, linux-doc
Cc: apw, broonie, chenhuacai, chris, corbet, dwaipayanray1, herbert,
joe, linux-kernel, linux, lukas.bulwahn, mac.xxn, sfr,
v-songbaohua, workflows, Max Filippov, Jeff Johnson,
Charlemagne Lasse
From: Xining Xu <mac.xxn@outlook.com>
If function-like macros do not utilize a parameter, it might result in a
build warning. In our coding style guidelines, we advocate for utilizing
static inline functions to replace such macros. This patch verifies
compliance with the new rule.
For a macro such as the one below,
#define test(a) do { } while (0)
The test result is as follows.
WARNING: Argument 'a' is not used in function-like macro
#21: FILE: mm/init-mm.c:20:
+#define test(a) do { } while (0)
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 lines checked
Signed-off-by: Xining Xu <mac.xxn@outlook.com>
Tested-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
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: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>
Cc: Charlemagne Lasse <charlemagnelasse@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 14 ++++++++++++++
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
index 127968995847..a9fac978a525 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
@@ -906,6 +906,20 @@ Macros, Attributes and Symbols
See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1399671106.2912.21.camel@joe-AO725/
+ **MACRO_ARG_UNUSED**
+ If function-like macros do not utilize a parameter, it might result
+ in a build warning. We advocate for utilizing static inline functions
+ to replace such macros.
+ For example, for a macro such as the one below::
+
+ #define test(a) do { } while (0)
+
+ there would be a warning like below::
+
+ WARNING: Argument 'a' is not used in function-like macro.
+
+ See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#macros-enums-and-rtl
+
**SINGLE_STATEMENT_DO_WHILE_MACRO**
For the multi-statement macros, it is necessary to use the do-while
loop to avoid unpredictable code paths. The do-while loop helps to
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 9c4c4a61bc83..2b812210b412 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -6040,6 +6040,12 @@ sub process {
CHK("MACRO_ARG_PRECEDENCE",
"Macro argument '$arg' may be better as '($arg)' to avoid precedence issues\n" . "$herectx");
}
+
+# check if this is an unused argument
+ if ($define_stmt !~ /\b$arg\b/) {
+ WARN("MACRO_ARG_UNUSED",
+ "Argument '$arg' is not used in function-like macro\n" . "$herectx");
+ }
}
# check for macros with flow control, but without ## concatenation
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread