On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:53:05AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 11:43 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Added and documented 3 new message types:
> > > - UNNECESSARY_INT
> > > - UNSPECIFIED_INT
> > > - UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> >
> > So...when you send multiple patches with the same subject line that's
> > always a bad sign. We really want a "git --oneline" listing to give a
> > good idea of what the patch does, and that depends on more descriptive
> > subject lines.
> >
> > In this case, something like:
> >
> > docs: checkpatch: add UNNECESSARY/UNSPECIFIED_INT and UNNECESSARY_ELSE
> >
> > I can fix up these two patches, but please try to keep this in mind for
> > future work.
> >
> > (applying the patches now).
>
> The unnecessary_else description isn't particularly good as the
> checkpatch output doesn't describe multiple if/else if/else if type
> returns where the message should not apply.
>
> For this type of use, the checkpatch message is not necessarily correct
> and because it could be a patch context, there's no way for checkpatch
> to know if it's correct or not.
>
> if (foo) {
> ...
> } else if (bar) {
> ...
> return [val];
> } else {
> ...
> }
>
Sorry, my bad. I have sent a new patch for the UNNECESSARY_ELSE test.
So please do review it.
Maybe we should add a check for the continue statement also, because it is
similar to the break and return statements, and using else after continue
statement is unnecessary.
Regards,
Utkarsh Verma
