Re: Possible false positive from checkpatch.pl

[Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>]

On 07/12/2010 02:03 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 13:35 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> These are ugly macros that will be eliminated, but for the moment they are in
>> the code. As I stated in my original email, removing the comma from the
>> definition and adding it to the code does fix the checkpatch error, but it
>> should not be necessary.
>
> Hi Larry.
>
> Using checkpatch is not necessary.
>
> If you want generally conforming kernel style,
> the macro should not end in a trailing comma.
>
> Feel free to ignore the checkpatch message,
>
> I think the warning is reasonable, though it
> could be made more specific.
>
> cheers, Joe
>
> Maybe something like:
> ---
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index bd88f11..7e8a3f4 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -2394,8 +2394,10 @@ sub process {
>   			}x;
>   			#print "REST<$rest>  dstat<$dstat>\n";
>   			if ($rest ne '') {
> -				if ($rest !~ /while\s*\(/&&
> -				    $dstat !~ /$exceptions/)
> +				if ($rest eq ",") {
> +					ERROR("Macros should not end with a trailing comma\n" . "$here\n$ctx\n");
> +				} elsif ($rest !~ /while\s*\(/&&
> +					 $dstat !~ /$exceptions/)
>   				{
>   					ERROR("Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop\n" . "$here\n$ctx\n");
>   			}

That looks good. At least it makes clear what is wrong.

Should it be an error, or just a warning?

Larry