[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121120144329.GE7955@dm>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:43:29 +0000
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To: Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add double empty line check
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:27:04PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> Andy, thanks for reviewing this patch.
>
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > Changes from previous attempt:
> > > - Use CHK instead of WARN
> > > - Issue only one warning per empty lines block
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>
> > > ---
> > > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/linescheckpatch.pl
> > > index 21a9f5d..13d264f 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > @@ -3579,6 +3579,14 @@ sub process {
> > > WARN("EXPORTED_WORLD_WRITABLE",
> > > "Exporting world writable files is usually an error. Consider more restrictive permissions.\n" . $herecurr);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +# check for double empty lines
> > > + if ($line =~ /^\+\s*$/ &&
> > > + ($rawlines[$linenr] =~ /^\s*$/ ||
> > > + $prevline =~ /^\+?\s*$/ && $rawlines[$linenr] !~ /^\+\s*$/)) {
> > > + CHK("DOUBLE_EMPTY_LINE",
> > > + "One empty line should be sufficient. Consider removing this one.\n" . $herecurr);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > # If we have no input at all, then there is nothing to report on
> >
> > In your previous version you indicated you would be emiting one per group
> > of lines, I do not see how this does that.
>
> This is what I'm testing:
> Only if the current line is a new blank line and:
> if the next line is empty but not newly added (this is the part that
> will make sure we get only one warning for a bunch of new lines - only
> the last newly added line will hit this condition)
> or
> if the previous line was empty (either new empty line or existing empty
> line) and the next line is not a new empty line (so we will issue just
> one warning).
>
> I tested it on few examples, and did not see a problem. Can you share an
> example where it issues more than a single warning for a newly
> introduced consecutive new lines?
No indeed. That was testing failure on my behalf.
>
> > Also this fails if the fragment
> > is at the top of the hunk emiting a perl warning.
>
> I did not see this warning. Can you please share this example? I tried
> adding a couple of empty lines at the beginning of a file and it seemed
> to work just fine for me (using perl v5.14.2).lines
Ok, this is actually if it is at the bottom, not the top. So if you
have a range of lines newly added to the bottom of the file. Leading to
this warning:
Use of uninitialized value within @rawlines in pattern match (m//) at
../checkpatch/scripts/checkpatch.pl line 3586.
-apw
--
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