linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

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:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:06:22 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Dong Aisheng-B29396 <B29396@...escale.com>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Guo Shawn-R65073 <r65073@...escale.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h

On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 02:57 +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
> > On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>
> > > Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
> > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
> > >         for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > > [...]
[]
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index
[]
> > > @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct
> > device_node *from,
> > >  	const char *name);
> > >  #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
> > >  	for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
> > > -	     dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > > +		dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in the
> > kernel.
> Yes, i was also ok without those annoying warning.
> Do you think if we need to fix the checkpatch.pl if the it is commonly used
> In the kernel?

I don't.  I think it's better for people to realize that
checkpatch is and will always be an imperfect tool and
that they should learn to ignore inappropriate warnings.


--
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/