* Lindent formatting issues
@ 2013-12-17 15:06 Laszlo Papp
2013-12-17 20:05 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Papp @ 2013-12-17 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML
Hi,
./scripts/Lindent seems to be working OK, but there are a few minor
issues like this:
static struct i2c_driver max6651_driver = {
.driver = {
- .name = "gpio-max6651",
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
- },
+ .name = "gpio-max6651",
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
+ },
Is there an option or something to mkae it work automatically? I am
referring to the "}," line which should not have changed.
Cheers,
Laszlo
PS.: I know it is an "indent" related question, but I do not see an
option for available this, and the project seems to be umaintained.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Lindent formatting issues
2013-12-17 15:06 Lindent formatting issues Laszlo Papp
@ 2013-12-17 20:05 ` Joe Perches
2013-12-19 16:17 ` Laszlo Papp
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2013-12-17 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Papp; +Cc: LKML
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:06 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> ./scripts/Lindent seems to be working OK, but there are a few minor
> issues like this:
>
> static struct i2c_driver max6651_driver = {
> .driver = {
> - .name = "gpio-max6651",
> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> - },
> + .name = "gpio-max6651",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + },
>
> Is there an option or something to mkae it work automatically? I am
> referring to the "}," line which should not have changed.
Assuming that was a copy/paste translation of
tabs to spaces, the first form is more common
in kernel sources and Lindent isn't doing the
right thing here.
You could also use scripts/checkpatch.pl with
the --fix option.
./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --fix <file>
with various --types=<TYPE,...> options.
Maybe use: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/23/504
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Lindent formatting issues
2013-12-17 20:05 ` Joe Perches
@ 2013-12-19 16:17 ` Laszlo Papp
2013-12-19 16:32 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Papp @ 2013-12-19 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: LKML
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:06 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> ./scripts/Lindent seems to be working OK, but there are a few minor
>> issues like this:
>>
>> static struct i2c_driver max6651_driver = {
>> .driver = {
>> - .name = "gpio-max6651",
>> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> - },
>> + .name = "gpio-max6651",
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> + },
>>
>> Is there an option or something to mkae it work automatically? I am
>> referring to the "}," line which should not have changed.
>
> Assuming that was a copy/paste translation of
> tabs to spaces, the first form is more common
> in kernel sources and Lindent isn't doing the
> right thing here.
>
> You could also use scripts/checkpatch.pl with
> the --fix option.
>
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --fix <file>
>
> with various --types=<TYPE,...> options.
>
> Maybe use: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/23/504
Thanks Joe. I seem to have further issues with this tool... I tried to
run it on a file I patched, but it generated a lot of noise unrelated
to my logical change... :(
Do you happen to know what the best way is to fix it in such cases? I
am providing some examples below:
if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr
- || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr
- || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr
- || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr
- || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
+ || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr
+ || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr
+ || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr
+ || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
....
- int n)
+ int n)
....
- int sysfs_modes[4] = {0, 1, 2, 1};
+ int sysfs_modes[4] = { 0, 1, 2, 1 };
etc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Lindent formatting issues
2013-12-19 16:17 ` Laszlo Papp
@ 2013-12-19 16:32 ` Joe Perches
2013-12-19 17:30 ` Laszlo Papp
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2013-12-19 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Papp; +Cc: LKML
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 16:17 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
[]
> > You could also use scripts/checkpatch.pl with
> > the --fix option.
> >
> > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --fix <file>
> >
> > with various --types=<TYPE,...> options.
> >
> > Maybe use: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/23/504
>
> Thanks Joe. I seem to have further issues with this tool... I tried to
> run it on a file I patched, but it generated a lot of noise unrelated
> to my logical change... :(
checkpatch is really for patches. Using -f is a
convenience ability. You can limit what messages
checkpatch emits by using "--types=<FOO[,BAR...]>"
You can show what message classifications are being
used by adding "--show-types".
> Do you happen to know what the best way is to fix it in such cases? I
> am providing some examples below:
>
> if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr
> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr
> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr
> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr
> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr
> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr
> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr
> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
Well, here the general kernel style is to put
the logical && or || test at the end of the
previous line so:
if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr ||
devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr ||
devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr ||
devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr ||
devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
would likely be preferred.
> - int n)
> + int n)
This may be indentation alignment but I don't follow
how this is a problem.
> - int sysfs_modes[4] = {0, 1, 2, 1};
> + int sysfs_modes[4] = { 0, 1, 2, 1 };
Is this change from Lindent or checkpatch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Lindent formatting issues
2013-12-19 16:32 ` Joe Perches
@ 2013-12-19 17:30 ` Laszlo Papp
2013-12-19 17:34 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Papp @ 2013-12-19 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: LKML
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 16:17 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> []
>> > You could also use scripts/checkpatch.pl with
>> > the --fix option.
>> >
>> > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --fix <file>
>> >
>> > with various --types=<TYPE,...> options.
>> >
>> > Maybe use: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/23/504
>>
>> Thanks Joe. I seem to have further issues with this tool... I tried to
>> run it on a file I patched, but it generated a lot of noise unrelated
>> to my logical change... :(
>
> checkpatch is really for patches. Using -f is a
> convenience ability. You can limit what messages
> checkpatch emits by using "--types=<FOO[,BAR...]>"
>
> You can show what message classifications are being
> used by adding "--show-types".
>
>> Do you happen to know what the best way is to fix it in such cases? I
>> am providing some examples below:
>>
>> if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr
>> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr
>> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr
>> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr
>> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
>> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr
>> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr
>> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr
>> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
>
> Well, here the general kernel style is to put
> the logical && or || test at the end of the
> previous line so:
>
> if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr ||
> devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr ||
> devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr ||
> devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr ||
> devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) {
>
> would likely be preferred.
>
>> - int n)
>> + int n)
>
> This may be indentation alignment but I don't follow
> how this is a problem.
It is a problem because it is a noise for a logical change that is not
about whitespace fixup. The kernel maintainer would probably
rightfully reject it with such a line in.
>
>> - int sysfs_modes[4] = {0, 1, 2, 1};
>> + int sysfs_modes[4] = { 0, 1, 2, 1 };
>
> Is this change from Lindent or checkpatch?
I have used Lindent when these lines were generated. Here is some more:
- data->dac = 180 - (180 * pwm)/255;
+ data->dac = 180 - (180 * pwm) / 255;
else
- data->dac = 76 - (76 * pwm)/255;
+ data->dac = 76 - (76 * pwm) / 255;
...
- .probe = max6650_probe,
- .remove = max6650_remove,
- .id_table = max6650_id,
+ .probe = max6650_probe,
+ .remove = max6650_remove,
+ .id_table = max6650_id,
...
- const char *buf, size_t count)
+ const char *buf, size_t count)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Lindent formatting issues
2013-12-19 17:30 ` Laszlo Papp
@ 2013-12-19 17:34 ` Joe Perches
2013-12-19 17:38 ` Laszlo Papp
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2013-12-19 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Papp; +Cc: LKML
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:30 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > Is this change from Lindent or checkpatch?
>
> I have used Lindent when these lines were generated. Here is some more:
I am not a Lindent / indent maintainer.
My suggestion remains not to use Lindent.
I _have_ suggested that Lindent be removed from the kernel.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/11/390
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Lindent formatting issues
2013-12-19 17:34 ` Joe Perches
@ 2013-12-19 17:38 ` Laszlo Papp
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Papp @ 2013-12-19 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: LKML
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 17:30 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
>> > Is this change from Lindent or checkpatch?
>>
>> I have used Lindent when these lines were generated. Here is some more:
>
> I am not a Lindent / indent maintainer.
>
> My suggestion remains not to use Lindent.
>
> I _have_ suggested that Lindent be removed from the kernel.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/11/390
I see. It was quite a while ago. You could post a follow-up? ;-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-12-19 17:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-12-17 15:06 Lindent formatting issues Laszlo Papp
2013-12-17 20:05 ` Joe Perches
2013-12-19 16:17 ` Laszlo Papp
2013-12-19 16:32 ` Joe Perches
2013-12-19 17:30 ` Laszlo Papp
2013-12-19 17:34 ` Joe Perches
2013-12-19 17:38 ` Laszlo Papp
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®