linux-kernel - RE: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after declarations" in a structure definition

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, 4 Aug 2014 14:50:01 +0000
From:	Dotan Barak <dotanb@...lanox.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after
 declarations" in a structure definition

I think that allowing a prefix is reasonable (to allow modules to add more flexibility).
I tried the suggested change and it still didn't work for me.

The following change worked for me:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z_]*\s*\(|

But, maybe it is better to be even more general and allow:
(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(|


Thanks a lot for the quick (and great) response!
Dotan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@...ches.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM
> To: Dotan Barak
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after
> declarations" in a structure definition
> 
> On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 14:14 +0000, Dotan Barak wrote:
> > Hi Joe.
> >
> > The patch that you mentioned solved most of the issues, thanks!
> >
> > However, there is still one more warning of this type within a struct
> declaration.
> >
> > # ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> >
> > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> > #508: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h:508:
> > +       struct mlx5_uuar_info   uuari;
> > +       MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
> >
> >
> > <snip start>
> > struct mlx5_priv {
> >         char                    name[MLX5_MAX_NAME_LEN];
> >         struct mlx5_eq_table    eq_table;
> >         struct mlx5_uuar_info   uuari;
> >         MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock);
> 
> MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL is not a "normal" DECLARE macro.
> 
> Perhaps the exception for the DECLARE_<FOO> declaration macros in the
> exceptions list:
> 
> 	(?:$Storage\s+)?(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(|
> 
> could be expanded to:
> 
> 	(?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(|
> 

--
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/