* scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
@ 2013-11-12 14:42 Mimi Zohar
2013-11-12 15:44 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2013-11-12 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Whitcroft; +Cc: linux-kernel, Joe Perches
Hi,
scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a
statically initialized array should be blank separated.
static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
{.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains
about (eg. commit 75834fc3).
thanks,
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
2013-11-12 14:42 scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint) Mimi Zohar
@ 2013-11-12 15:44 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-12 16:09 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2013-11-12 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 09:42 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a
> statically initialized array should be blank separated.
>
> static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
> {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
>
> Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains
> about (eg. commit 75834fc3).
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.
Lindent _doesn't_add a blank and checkpatch
seems to do the right thing here.
I'd just as soon delete Lindent.
$ git log --format=email -p -1 75834fc3 | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#35: FILE: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:52:
+ {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
#35: FILE: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:52:
+ {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
^
[...]
$ ./scripts/Lindent security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
$ git diff security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
#10: FILE: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:72:
+ {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags =
^
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
#10: FILE: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:72:
+ {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags =
^
[...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
2013-11-12 15:44 ` Joe Perches
@ 2013-11-12 16:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-11-12 16:30 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2013-11-12 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 07:44 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 09:42 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a
> > statically initialized array should be blank separated.
> >
> > static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
> > {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
> >
> > Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains
> > about (eg. commit 75834fc3).
>
> Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.
> Lindent _doesn't_add a blank and checkpatch
> seems to do the right thing here.
Sorry, my mistake. It's the reverse. Checkpatch complains about the
missing blank, which Lindent then removes.
#40: FILE: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:52:
+ {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags =
IMA_FSMAGIC},
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
#40: FILE: security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c:52:
+ {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags =
IMA_FSMAGIC},
^
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
2013-11-12 16:09 ` Mimi Zohar
@ 2013-11-12 16:30 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-12 16:51 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2013-11-12 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:09 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 07:44 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 09:42 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a
> > > statically initialized array should be blank separated.
> > >
> > > static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
> > > {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
> > >
> > > Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains
> > > about (eg. commit 75834fc3).
> >
> > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.
>
> > Lindent _doesn't_add a blank and checkpatch
> > seems to do the right thing here.
>
> Sorry, my mistake. It's the reverse. Checkpatch complains about the
> missing blank, which Lindent then removes.
My suggestion is not to use Lindent.
If you want a semi-automated source-code reformatting tool,
use scripts/checkpatch.pl --fix
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
2013-11-12 16:30 ` Joe Perches
@ 2013-11-12 16:51 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-11-12 16:56 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2013-11-12 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 08:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:09 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 07:44 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 09:42 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > scripts/Lindent and scripts/checkpatch disagree whether the fields in a
> > > > statically initialized array should be blank separated.
> > > >
> > > > static struct ima_rule_entry default_rules[] = {
> > > > {.action = DONT_MEASURE,.fsmagic = PROC_SUPER_MAGIC,.flags = IMA_FSMAGIC},
> > > >
> > > > Lindent adds a blank before '.fsmagic', which checkpatch then complains
> > > > about (eg. commit 75834fc3).
> > >
> > > Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.
> >
> > > Lindent _doesn't_add a blank and checkpatch
> > > seems to do the right thing here.
> >
> > Sorry, my mistake. It's the reverse. Checkpatch complains about the
> > missing blank, which Lindent then removes.
>
> My suggestion is not to use Lindent.
>
> If you want a semi-automated source-code reformatting tool,
> use scripts/checkpatch.pl --fix
Thanks, perhaps this suggestion should be reflected in
Documentation/CodingStyle.
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)
2013-11-12 16:51 ` Mimi Zohar
@ 2013-11-12 16:56 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2013-11-12 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:51 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 08:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > My suggestion is not to use Lindent.
> >
> > If you want a semi-automated source-code reformatting tool,
> > use scripts/checkpatch.pl --fix
>
> Thanks, perhaps this suggestion should be reflected in
> Documentation/CodingStyle.
I sent a patch awhile ago
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/11/390
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-12 16:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-11-12 14:42 scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint) Mimi Zohar
2013-11-12 15:44 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-12 16:09 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-11-12 16:30 ` Joe Perches
2013-11-12 16:51 ` Mimi Zohar
2013-11-12 16:56 ` Joe Perches
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®