Re: scripts: checkpatch.pl & Lindent (minor complaint)

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

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