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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 08:03:16 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com> Cc: willy@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: checkpatch mistake on XA_STATE? On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 11:13 +0100, David Howells wrote: > I see the following: > > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations > #1921: FILE: fs/cifs/smb2ops.c:4684: > + struct folio *folio; > + XA_STATE(xas, buffer, 0); > > but XA_STATE() technically *is* a declaration. > > Should checkpatch treat it as such? Probably. --- scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl index 503e8abbb2c1e..2cf28014132f6 100755 --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl @@ -1042,7 +1042,8 @@ our $FuncArg = qr{$Typecast{0,1}($LvalOrFunc|$Constant|$String)}; our $declaration_macros = qr{(?x: (?:$Storage\s+)?(?:[A-Z_][A-Z0-9]*_){0,2}(?:DEFINE|DECLARE)(?:_[A-Z0-9]+){1,6}\s*\(| (?:$Storage\s+)?[HLP]?LIST_HEAD\s*\(| - (?:SKCIPHER_REQUEST|SHASH_DESC|AHASH_REQUEST)_ON_STACK\s*\( + (?:SKCIPHER_REQUEST|SHASH_DESC|AHASH_REQUEST)_ON_STACK\s*\(| + (?:$Storage\s+)?(?:XA_ARRAY|XA_ARRAY_ORDER)\s*\( )}; our %allow_repeated_words = (
Powered by blists - more mailing lists