Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve missing blank line after declarations test

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 15:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2014 13:12:16 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > A couple more modifications to the declarations tests.
> > 
> > o Declarations can also be bitfields so exclude things with a colon
> > o Make sure the current and previous lines are indented the same
> >   to avoid matching some macro where a struct type is passed on
> >   the previous line like:
> > 
> > 		next = list_entry(buffer->entry.next,
> > 				  struct binder_buffer, entry);
> > 		if (buffer_start_page(next) == buffer_end_page(buffer)) 
> 
> So checkpatch-always-warn-on-missing-blank-line-after-variable-declaration-block.patch
> is stuck in -mm while I evaluate its effects.  Thus far that evaluation
> has been "super non-intrusive", because the patch doesn't actually
> do anything.
[]
> @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ long vfs_truncate(struct path *path, lof
>  {
>  	struct inode *inode;
>  	long error;
> +	wobble();
>  
>  	inode = path->dentry->d_inode;

Patch content can be a bit odd when lines are
both added and deleted so checkpatch bleats
only when both lines are added.

+	int foo;
+	wibble();

generates a complaint.

 	int foo;
+	wibble_wobble();

does not.