Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Treewide frequency of various checkpatch messages | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:48:50 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:02:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 01:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:54 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > (a question about a new message warning of a missing > > blank line between variable declaration blocks and > > code in a function) > > > > How many warnings does this generate does this generate when you run it > > > > across the whole tree? > > > A lot. > > > > Turns out it's 20,210 and it's the 14th > > most common checkpatch message type. > > > > 14 20210 WARNING:SPACING: Missing a blank line after declarations > > I think it's still worthwhile to clean up.
Maybe.
Luckily, <smile> I don't have to deal with the patches that would be generated by this message.
Some people are going to view patches for this as useless noise.
Couple of things:
It's kind of interesting how the messages vary by subsystem. Let me know if you want any breakdowns.
And there are a small number of false positives for this "Missing a blank line" test with declarations like:
typedef *foo; DECLARE_BITMAP(foo); __DECL_REG(foo); LIST_HEAD(foo);
So there could be a minor improvement to the test.
I looked at some of the results using:
This sort of match stands out a bit:
---> arch/tile/lib/spinlock_32.c:68: { u32 iterations = 0; while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock)) delay_backoff(iterations++); }
Instances like this may be fine, but adding blank lines to very short functions with a single declaration just adds to the overall line count.
I've no strong opinion of the need to write code like:
{ u32 iterations = 0;
while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock)) delay_backoff(iterations++); }
| |