[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121120193249.GH17797@dm>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:32:49 +0000
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To: Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add double empty line check
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:10:35PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> About the logic - true, if diff will show deleted lines after newly
> added lines, some new double line segments will be missed. However, it
> seems like few other things will break if diff will start acting out
> like that. The suggestion you posted earlier will miss those as well,
> and starting to check for this weird case (of deleted lines after the
> added lines) does not seem right.
Actually the version I sent should indeed cope with the deleted lines
regardless of order. It was cirtainly intended to.
-apw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists