[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071202132440.GM30008@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:24:40 -0200
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] teach checkpatch.pl about list_for_each
Em Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 01:03:35PM +0100, Christer Weinigel escreveu:
> Hi Andy,
>
> you seem to be the last person messing around with checkpatch.pl so I'm
> addressing this to you. :-)
>
> checkpatch complains about the following:
>
> WARNING: no space between function name and open parenthesis '('
> #520: FILE: drivers/spi/spi_s3c24xx_dma.c:478:
> + list_for_each_entry (transfer, &message->transfers, transfer_list) {
>
> which I think is a bit bogus since it actually is a for statement in
> disguise. The following patch adds list_for_each to the list of things
> that look like functions that it shouldn't complain about.
Then you would have to do this for tons other *_for_each*, such as
hlist_for_each, etc, but:
[acme@...pio net-2.6.25]$ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep
'_for_each[a-z_]*(' | wc -l
4370
[acme@...pio net-2.6.25]$ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep
'_for_each[a-z_]* (' | wc -l
160
[acme@...pio net-2.6.25]$
I'd say that the common practice in the * _for_each_* use is to do just
what checkpatch does right now, complain if the is a space. Ah, and that
is also my personal preference 8-)
- Arnaldo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists