Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint) | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:51:44 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 08:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:09 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 07:44 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 09:42 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a > > > > statically initialized array should be blank separated. > > > > > > > > static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = { > > > > {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC}, > > > > > > > > Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains > > > > about (eg. commit 75834fc3). > > > > > > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. > > > > > Lindent _doesn't_add a blank and checkpatch > > > seems to do the right thing here. > > > > Sorry, my mistake. It's the reverse. Checkpatch complains about the > > missing blank, which Lindent then removes. > > My suggestion is not to use Lindent. > > If you want a semi-automated source-code reformatting tool, > use scripts/checkpatch.pl --fix
Thanks, perhaps this suggestion should be reflected in Documentation/CodingStyle.
Mimi
| |