[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1391806318.28199.6.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:51:58 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: frowand.list@...il.com
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] Add support for MSM's mmio clock/reset
controller
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 11:38 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/6/2014 9:11 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > For patch 1, what checkpatch bug might that be?
[]
> Sorry, it is patch 2, not patch 1 ("[PATCH v5 02/14] clk: Add set_rate_and_parent() op"):
>
> WARNING: Multiple spaces after return type
> #188: FILE: include/linux/clk-provider.h:154:
> + int (*set_rate_and_parent)(struct clk_hw *hw,
>
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 152 lines checked
Yup, that one might be a bit aggressive.
It's a complaint about function pointer declaration style.
from checkpatch:
------------------------------------------------------
# unnecessary space "type (*funcptr)(args...)"
elsif ($declare =~ /\s{2,}$/) {
WARN("SPACING",
"Multiple spaces after return type\n" . $herecurr);
}
------------------------------------------------------
This is warning about style equivalent to declarations like:
int foo(int bar);
checkpatch doesn't warn about declarations of that style,
so likely checkpatch shouldn't warn about multiple spaces
after a function pointer return type either.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about it.
If you think it should be silenced, it could be either
downgraded to a CHK or removed altogether.
--
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