[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329866171.5143.16.camel@joe2Laptop>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:16:11 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"andrei.emeltchenko.news@...il.com"
<andrei.emeltchenko.news@...il.com>,
"linville@...driver.com" <linville@...driver.com>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add some --strict coding style checks
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 22:09 +0000, Allan, Bruce W wrote:
> This appears to falsely complain about parenthesis alignment in
> conditional statements with multiple opening parentheses. For
> example, these will report a check condition:
>
> if (test_and_set_bit(nr,
> addr))
> baz();
>
> if (!(func_a(x) &&
> func_b(y)))
> baz();
>
> Assuming my stupid mailer will screw up the indentation above, the 'a'
> in addr in the first example is meant to be immediately below the 'n'
> in nr, and the two 'f's in func_* are meant to be vertically lined up
> in the second example.
You're right, thanks for testing.
The logic I used is too trivial.
Andrew, please ditch this one for awhile.
--
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