[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1384275104.5754.33.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:51:44 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 08:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:09 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 07:44 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 09:42 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a
> > > > statically initialized array should be blank separated.
> > > >
> > > > static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
> > > > {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
> > > >
> > > > Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains
> > > > about (eg. commit 75834fc3).
> > >
> > > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.
> >
> > > Lindent _doesn't_add a blank and checkpatch
> > > seems to do the right thing here.
> >
> > Sorry, my mistake. It's the reverse. Checkpatch complains about the
> > missing blank, which Lindent then removes.
>
> My suggestion is not to use Lindent.
>
> If you want a semi-automated source-code reformatting tool,
> use scripts/checkpatch.pl --fix
Thanks, perhaps this suggestion should be reflected in
Documentation/CodingStyle.
Mimi
--
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