linux-kernel - RE: list iterator spacing: clang-format vs 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:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:27:57 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Joe Perches' <joe@...ches.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
CC:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: list iterator spacing: clang-format vs checkpatch

From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 17 January 2022 18:05
> 
> On Mon, 2022-01-17 at 13:47 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Hey again,
> 
> Rehi.
> 
> > Four years later I went through basically the same motions: "oh hey I
> > should clean this up", "I'll start with clang format", "oh cool it
> > adds spaces before the iterator paren so it looks like a normal for
> > loop to me", "that seems so reasonable; I love clang format", "oh no
> > checkpatch.pl complains; I hope it's wrong", "I wonder if anybody has
> > thought about this before", "oh, look, I asked about this already in
> > 2018."

Personally I think it should look like a #define expansion, not
part of the language.

I did notice it in the recent patch - and though it looked wrong.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)