[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1484060672.1014.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:04:32 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't warn on every struct without
const_structs file
On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 07:01 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 15:03 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> >
> > The script says that it won't warn:
> > "No structs that should be const will be found [...]"
> >
> > but then that doesn't work and it warns on every single struct
> > instead, since the regular expression ends up empty. Fix that
> > by checking that it's not empty first.
>
> nak.
>
> How does const_structs end up empty for you?
I copied checkpatch elsewhere and ran it.
Regardless, the current code is utterly stupid - it prints a warning
that it won't flag any structs, and then proceeds to flag all structs.
If you must, send a patch to abort() [whatever the perl equivalent is]
when the file can't be found, but as it is, the code is just idiotic.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists