Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:11:05 -0700 | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] Use new __init_task_data macro in arch init_task.c files. |
| |
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:32:38PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:21:22PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 20:10 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 20:07 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 20:03 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 19:58 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 22:49 -0400, Tim Abbott wrote: > > > > > > > +union thread_union init_thread_union __init_task_data = > > > > > > > + { INIT_THREAD_INFO(init_task) }; > > > > > > All the lines like the above are all producing checkpatch errors.. It > > > > > > looks like the open brace needs to be up with the equals .. > > > > > Some checkpatch errors are ignorable. > > > > > checkpatch output is a guide, not a rule. > > > > > > > > Not errors, those aren't usually ignorable .. Warnings, those could be.. > > > > > > Shrug. So submit a patch... > > > > I would if this was code in the kernel already, but it's not. LKML > > submission is the process people use to find these types of issues. > > Issues that should be fixed prior to inclusion, and may have been > > overlooked.. > > > Did you even bother reading the patch? This is exactly the format that is > in the kernel today (and even predates checkpatch), it's just that > checkpatch doesn't presently complain about it due to how the section > parsing is done. If you move the section annotation down to a separate > line, it also silences checkpatch. In this case, checkpatch is simply > broken and can be ignored. Stylistic "errors" are complete nonsense.
The
struct data_struct var_name __section_decoration = { initializator, };
is a canonical format for the kernel though so if somebody feels strongly about being "checkpatch clean" he can post a follow-up patch ;)
-- Dmitry
| |