Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:37:39 -0500 | From | Larry Finger <> | Subject | Re: Possible false positive from checkpatch.pl |
| |
On 07/12/2010 02:03 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 13:35 -0500, Larry Finger wrote: >> These are ugly macros that will be eliminated, but for the moment they are in >> the code. As I stated in my original email, removing the comma from the >> definition and adding it to the code does fix the checkpatch error, but it >> should not be necessary. > > Hi Larry. > > Using checkpatch is not necessary. > > If you want generally conforming kernel style, > the macro should not end in a trailing comma. > > Feel free to ignore the checkpatch message, > > I think the warning is reasonable, though it > could be made more specific. > > cheers, Joe > > Maybe something like: > --- > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > index bd88f11..7e8a3f4 100755 > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > @@ -2394,8 +2394,10 @@ sub process { > }x; > #print "REST<$rest> dstat<$dstat>\n"; > if ($rest ne '') { > - if ($rest !~ /while\s*\(/&& > - $dstat !~ /$exceptions/) > + if ($rest eq ",") { > + ERROR("Macros should not end with a trailing comma\n" . "$here\n$ctx\n"); > + } elsif ($rest !~ /while\s*\(/&& > + $dstat !~ /$exceptions/) > { > ERROR("Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop\n" . "$here\n$ctx\n"); > }
That looks good. At least it makes clear what is wrong.
Should it be an error, or just a warning?
Larry
| |