search for: smp_barrier_stems

...eckpatch.pl > index 15cfca4..4466579 100755 > --- 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) Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com Pro...

...eckpatch.pl > index 15cfca4..4466579 100755 > --- 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) Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com Pro...

...--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) >...

...--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) >...

...memory barrier usage. This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the next version of the series. changes from v2: address comments by Joe Perches: use (?: ... ) to avoid unnecessary capture groups rename smp_barriers to smp_barrier_stems for clarity add barriers before/after atomic Changes from v1: catch optional\s* before () in barriers rewrite using qr{} instead of map Michael S. Tsirkin (3): checkpatch.pl: add missing memory barriers checkpatch: check for __smp outside barrier.h checkpatch: add virt barriers scripts/...

...memory barrier usage. This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the next version of the series. changes from v2: address comments by Joe Perches: use (?: ... ) to avoid unnecessary capture groups rename smp_barriers to smp_barrier_stems for clarity add barriers before/after atomic Changes from v1: catch optional\s* before () in barriers rewrite using qr{} instead of map Michael S. Tsirkin (3): checkpatch.pl: add missing memory barriers checkpatch: check for __smp outside barrier.h checkpatch: add virt barriers scripts/...

...> >> [] > >> > > @@ -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: > >> > > >...

...f 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 bet...

...tch.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...

...f memory barrier cleanup, this patchset extends checkpatch to make it easier to stop incorrect memory barrier usage. This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the pull request including the series. changes from v3: rename smp_barrier_stems to barrier_stems as suggested by Julian Calaby. add (?: ... ) around a variable in regexp, in case we change the value later so that it matters. changes from v2: address comments by Joe Perches: use (?: ... ) to avoid unnecessary capture groups rename smp_barriers to smp_barrier_stems for cla...

...f memory barrier cleanup, this patchset extends checkpatch to make it easier to stop incorrect memory barrier usage. This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt and will be included in the pull request including the series. changes from v3: rename smp_barrier_stems to barrier_stems as suggested by Julian Calaby. add (?: ... ) around a variable in regexp, in case we change the value later so that it matters. changes from v2: address comments by Joe Perches: use (?: ... ) to avoid unnecessary capture groups rename smp_barriers to smp_barrier_stems for cla...

...l | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index 15cfca4..4466579 100755 --- 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) }x; if ($line =~ /\b(?:$all_barriers)\s*\(/) { -- MST

...ds checkpatch to make it easier to stop > incorrect memory barrier usage. > > This replaces the checkpatch patches in my series > arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt > and will be included in the pull request including > the series. > > changes from v3: > rename smp_barrier_stems to barrier_stems > as suggested by Julian Calaby. In fact it was Joe Perches that suggested it. Sorry about the confusion. > add (?: ... ) around a variable in regexp, > in case we change the value later so that it matters. > changes from v2: > address comments by Joe Perches:...

On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 13:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > SMP-only barriers were missing in checkpatch.pl > > Refactor code slightly to make adding more variants easier. [] > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl [] > @@ -5116,7 +5116,25 @@ sub process { > ? } > ? } > ?# check for memory barriers without a comment. > - if ($line =~

On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 13:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > SMP-only barriers were missing in checkpatch.pl > > Refactor code slightly to make adding more variants easier. [] > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl [] > @@ -5116,7 +5116,25 @@ sub process { > ? } > ? } > ?# check for memory barriers without a comment. > - if ($line =~