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]

Date:	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:37:57 +0200
From:	Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
To:	Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coding style details (checkpatch)

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl> wrote:
> 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"?

Ah, right. One might say that this is a false positive, but that's up
to Joe or Andy I guess.

It may be valid C code, but I think this construction is slightly
funky to begin with.

Which file is this?

Frans
--
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/