* [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
@ 2020-11-18 12:40 Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 18:14 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dwaipayan Ray @ 2020-11-18 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: joe; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, dwaipayanray1, linux-kernel, lukas.bulwahn
Brace style misuses of the following types are now
corrected:
int foo(int bar,
int baz) { bar++;
return bar + baz;
}
int foo(int bar,
int baz) {
return bar + baz;
}
if (bar &&
baz)
{ bar++;
baz++;
}
if (bar &&
baz)
{
bar++;
baz++;
}
Signed-off-by: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 0da6422cd0fd..8da6cde20c68 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
#print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
- ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
- "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
- "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
+ if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
+ "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
+ "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
+ $fix) {
+ my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
+ my $line2 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1];
+ fix_delete_line($ctx_ln - 2, $line1);
+ fix_delete_line($ctx_ln - 1, $line2);
+
+ my $fixedline = rtrim($line1) . " {";
+ fix_insert_line($ctx_ln - 1, $fixedline);
+ $fixedline = $line2;
+ $fixedline =~ s/^(.\s*)\{\s*/$1\t/;
+ if ($fixedline !~ /^\+\s*$/) {
+ fix_insert_line($ctx_ln - 1, $fixedline);
+ }
+ }
}
if ($level == 0 && $pre_ctx !~ /}\s*while\s*\($/ &&
$ctx =~ /\)\s*\;\s*$/ &&
@@ -6659,16 +6673,30 @@ sub process {
my $ok = 0;
my $cnt = statement_rawlines($stat);
my $herectx = $here . "\n";
+ my $cur_ln = $linenr - 1;
for (my $n = 0; $n < $cnt; $n++) {
my $rl = raw_line($linenr, $n);
$herectx .= $rl . "\n";
$ok = 1 if ($rl =~ /^[ \+]\{/);
$ok = 1 if ($rl =~ /\{/ && $n == 0);
last if $rl =~ /^[ \+].*\{/;
+ $cur_ln++;
}
if (!$ok) {
- ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
- "open brace '{' following function definitions go on the next line\n" . $herectx);
+ if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
+ "open brace '{' following function definitions go on the next line\n" . $herectx) &&
+ $fix && $rawlines[$cur_ln] =~ /^\+/) {
+ fix_delete_line($cur_ln, $rawlines[$cur_ln]);
+ my $fixed_line = $rawlines[$cur_ln];
+ $fixed_line =~ /(^.*\)\s*)\{(.*)$/;
+ my $line1 = rtrim($1);
+ my $line2 = $2;
+ fix_insert_line($cur_ln, $line1);
+ fix_insert_line($cur_ln, "\+{");
+ if ($line2 !~ /^\s*$/) {
+ fix_insert_line($cur_ln, "\+\t" . trim($line2));
+ }
+ }
}
}
--
2.27.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 12:40 [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues Dwaipayan Ray
@ 2020-11-18 18:14 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 18:33 ` Dwaipayan Ray
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2020-11-18 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dwaipayan Ray; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, lukas.bulwahn
On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> corrected:
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
>
>
> if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> + $fix) {
> + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
> + my $line2 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1];
> + fix_delete_line($ctx_ln - 2, $line1);
> + fix_delete_line($ctx_ln - 1, $line2);
> +
> + my $fixedline = rtrim($line1) . " {";
> + fix_insert_line($ctx_ln - 1, $fixedline);
> + $fixedline = $line2;
> + $fixedline =~ s/^(.\s*)\{\s*/$1\t/;
> + if ($fixedline !~ /^\+\s*$/) {
> + fix_insert_line($ctx_ln - 1, $fixedline);
> + }
> + }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 18:14 ` Joe Perches
@ 2020-11-18 18:33 ` Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 18:39 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dwaipayan Ray @ 2020-11-18 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> > corrected:
> []
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
> >
> >
> > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> > + $fix) {
> > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
>
> How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
Hi,
I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already
there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix
should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified.
Thanks,
Dwaipayan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 18:33 ` Dwaipayan Ray
@ 2020-11-18 18:39 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 18:45 ` Dwaipayan Ray
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2020-11-18 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dwaipayan Ray; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:03 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> > > corrected:
> > []
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > []
> > > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> > > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
> > >
> > >
> > > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> > > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> > > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> > > + $fix) {
> > > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
> >
> > How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
>
> Hi,
> I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already
> there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix
> should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified.
As far as I know there are no existing uses of --fix with OPEN_BRACE.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 18:39 ` Joe Perches
@ 2020-11-18 18:45 ` Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 19:58 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dwaipayan Ray @ 2020-11-18 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:09 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:03 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> > > > corrected:
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > []
> > > > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> > > > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> > > > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> > > > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> > > > + $fix) {
> > > > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
> > >
> > > How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
> >
> > Hi,
> > I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already
> > there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix
> > should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified.
>
> As far as I know there are no existing uses of --fix with OPEN_BRACE.
>
I think you added it via 8d1824780f2f1 ("checkpatch: add --fix option
for a couple OPEN_BRACE misuses")
Thanks,
Dwaipayan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 18:45 ` Dwaipayan Ray
@ 2020-11-18 19:58 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 20:22 ` Dwaipayan Ray
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2020-11-18 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dwaipayan Ray; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:15 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:09 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:03 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > > Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> > > > > corrected:
> > > > []
> > > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > > []
> > > > > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> > > > > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> > > > > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> > > > > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> > > > > + $fix) {
> > > > > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
> > > >
> > > > How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already
> > > there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix
> > > should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified.
> >
> > As far as I know there are no existing uses of --fix with OPEN_BRACE.
> >
>
> I think you added it via 8d1824780f2f1 ("checkpatch: add --fix option
> for a couple OPEN_BRACE misuses")
The difference here is that you are dealing with a $stat context and
the existing --fix entries are just for single line fixes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 19:58 ` Joe Perches
@ 2020-11-18 20:22 ` Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 20:39 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dwaipayan Ray @ 2020-11-18 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:28 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:15 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:09 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:03 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > > > Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> > > > > > corrected:
> > > > > []
> > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > > > []
> > > > > > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> > > > > > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> > > > > > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > > > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > > > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> > > > > > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > > > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > > > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> > > > > > + $fix) {
> > > > > > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
> > > > >
> > > > > How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already
> > > > there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix
> > > > should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified.
> > >
> > > As far as I know there are no existing uses of --fix with OPEN_BRACE.
> > >
> >
> > I think you added it via 8d1824780f2f1 ("checkpatch: add --fix option
> > for a couple OPEN_BRACE misuses")
>
> The difference here is that you are dealing with a $stat context and
> the existing --fix entries are just for single line fixes.
>
Hi,
Ya I understand that. Though I am dealing with $stat content,
I am also directly accessing $rawlines here.
So I think that should have the proper patch line format, starting
with + or - or so.
So in this case if the error is triggered, checking for /^+/ should be done
becase it would be wrong to fix the others with /^[- ]/
Is there something else that I am not getting here?
Thanks,
Dwaipayan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 20:22 ` Dwaipayan Ray
@ 2020-11-18 20:39 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 20:52 ` Dwaipayan Ray
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2020-11-18 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dwaipayan Ray; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 01:52 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:28 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:15 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:09 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:03 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > > > > > Brace style misuses of the following types are now
> > > > > > > corrected:
> > > > > > []
> > > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > > > > []
> > > > > > > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process {
> > > > > > > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n";
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) {
> > > > > > > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > > > > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > > > > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n");
> > > > > > > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE",
> > > > > > > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" .
> > > > > > > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") &&
> > > > > > > + $fix) {
> > > > > > > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2];
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already
> > > > > there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix
> > > > > should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know there are no existing uses of --fix with OPEN_BRACE.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you added it via 8d1824780f2f1 ("checkpatch: add --fix option
> > > for a couple OPEN_BRACE misuses")
> >
> > The difference here is that you are dealing with a $stat context and
> > the existing --fix entries are just for single line fixes.
> >
>
> Hi,
> Ya I understand that. Though I am dealing with $stat content,
> I am also directly accessing $rawlines here.
> So I think that should have the proper patch line format, starting
> with + or - or so.
>
> So in this case if the error is triggered, checking for /^+/ should be done
> becase it would be wrong to fix the others with /^[- ]/
>
> Is there something else that I am not getting here?
$stat does not include lines that are skipped if the lines start with -
Patch context may be:
line content
1 func(...
2 - original arguments);
3 + changed);
where $stat does not include the 'original arguments' changed line
func(...,
changed);
but the $rawlines[] entries are consecutive.
Anyway, this needs to be handled very carefully if handled at all.
I think it's easier to avoid handling these cases and let the
patch submitter fix it manually if appropriate.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues
2020-11-18 20:39 ` Joe Perches
@ 2020-11-18 20:52 ` Dwaipayan Ray
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dwaipayan Ray @ 2020-11-18 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linux-kernel-mentees, linux-kernel, Lukas Bulwahn
> > > The difference here is that you are dealing with a $stat context and
> > > the existing --fix entries are just for single line fixes.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> > Ya I understand that. Though I am dealing with $stat content,
> > I am also directly accessing $rawlines here.
> > So I think that should have the proper patch line format, starting
> > with + or - or so.
> >
> > So in this case if the error is triggered, checking for /^+/ should be done
> > becase it would be wrong to fix the others with /^[- ]/
> >
> > Is there something else that I am not getting here?
>
> $stat does not include lines that are skipped if the lines start with -
>
> Patch context may be:
>
> line content
>
> 1 func(...
> 2 - original arguments);
> 3 + changed);
>
> where $stat does not include the 'original arguments' changed line
>
> func(...,
> changed);
>
> but the $rawlines[] entries are consecutive.
>
> Anyway, this needs to be handled very carefully if handled at all.
>
> I think it's easier to avoid handling these cases and let the
> patch submitter fix it manually if appropriate.
>
Thanks. I get your point now. It seems it's much more complex than
I thought it to be. I will avoid working on this one then.
Thanks & Regards,
Dwaipayan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-18 20:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-11-18 12:40 [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 18:14 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 18:33 ` Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 18:39 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 18:45 ` Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 19:58 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 20:22 ` Dwaipayan Ray
2020-11-18 20:39 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 20:52 ` Dwaipayan Ray
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®