[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0808161124220.14442-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
> > The following appears to be a false positive in checkpatch:
> >
> > ERROR: space prohibited after that '*' (ctx:BxW)
> > #163: FILE: drivers/usb/core/usb.c:304:
> > +#define usb_device_pm_ops (* (struct pm_ops *) 0)
> > ^
> >
> > Certainly this is a rather uncommon code construction, but similar
> > ones might occur elsewhere. To my eyes,
> >
> > (* (type *) ptr)
> >
> > looks better than
> >
> > (*(type *) ptr)
> >
> > or
> >
> > (*(type *)ptr)
> >
> > or even
> >
> > (*(type*)ptr)
> >
> > but of course this is a matter of opinion. Is there any strong feeling
> > about this in the kernel community?
> >
>
> Personally, I rather strongly prefer (*(type *)ptr).
It's probably safe to say that this is one of those gray areas where
one need not adhere strictly to checkpatch's recommendations.
Alan Stern
--
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