linux-kernel - Re: Coding style details (checkpatch)

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]

Message-ID: <m3fv5ornur.fsf_-_@t19.piap.pl>
Date:	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:31:24 +0200
From:	khalasa@...p.pl (Krzysztof Hałasa)
To:	Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coding style details (checkpatch)

Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com> writes:

>> #define REG8_1(a0) ((const u16[8]){a0, a0 + 1, a0 + 2, a0 + 3})
>>
>> vs
>>
>> #define REG8_1(a0) ((const u16[8]) {a0, a0 + 1, a0 + 2, a0 + 3})
>>                                 ^^^^^
>
> The prescribed style is to have no space between cast and castee. So,
> the top option.

Thanks. That's what I thought. It looks that checkpatch doesn't like
this:

ERROR: space required before the open brace '{'
+#define REG8_1(a0) ((const u16[8]){a0, a0 + 1, a0 + 2, a0 + 3})

Does this qualify as the "false positive"?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Industrial Research Institute for Automation and Measurements PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warsaw, Poland
--
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/