linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve missing blank line after declarations test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 05 May 2014 15:35:43 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Seunghun Lee <waydi1@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve missing blank line after
 declarations test

On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 15:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2014 13:12:16 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 
> > A couple more modifications to the declarations tests.
> > 
> > o Declarations can also be bitfields so exclude things with a colon
> > o Make sure the current and previous lines are indented the same
> >   to avoid matching some macro where a struct type is passed on
> >   the previous line like:
> > 
> > 		next = list_entry(buffer->entry.next,
> > 				  struct binder_buffer, entry);
> > 		if (buffer_start_page(next) == buffer_end_page(buffer)) 
> 
> So checkpatch-always-warn-on-missing-blank-line-after-variable-declaration-block.patch
> is stuck in -mm while I evaluate its effects.  Thus far that evaluation
> has been "super non-intrusive", because the patch doesn't actually
> do anything.
[]
> @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ long vfs_truncate(struct path *path, lof
>  {
>  	struct inode *inode;
>  	long error;
> +	wobble();
>  
>  	inode = path->dentry->d_inode;

Patch content can be a bit odd when lines are
both added and deleted so checkpatch bleats
only when both lines are added.

+	int foo;
+	wibble();

generates a complaint.

 	int foo;
+	wibble_wobble();

does not.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/