On Fri, 11 Jun 2021, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > Add and document more checkpatch message types. About 50% of all > message types are documented now. > > In addition to this: > > - Create a new subsection 'Indentation and Line Breaks'. > - Rename subsection 'Comment style' to simply 'Comments'. > - Refactor some of the existing types to appropriate subsections. > > Signed-off-by: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> 'make htmldocs' produces no new warnings. See one further comment on the html presentation below; other than that no further comments. Lukas > --- > > Changes in v3: > - Update explanation for CONSTANT_CONVERSION > - Add more reference links > - Fix grammatical errors > > Changes in v2: > - Correct DEVICE_ATTR message types as suggested by Joe Perches. > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/eab0487d7b4e68badbbe0505b2a7903b9d8931c4.camel@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > - Use passive voice in the documentation > > Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 397 ++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 327 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > index 87b859f321de..ad84e709aa25 100644 > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst <snip> > + > + **FUNCTION_ARGUMENTS** > + This warning is emitted due to any of the following reasons:: I think here you wnt to have an enumeration, but the "::" makes it a code block. > + > + 1. Arguments for the function declaration do not follow > + the identifier name. Example:: > + > + void foo > + (int bar, int baz) > + > + This should be corrected to:: > + > + void foo(int bar, int baz) > + > + 2. Some arguments for the function definition do not > + have an identifier name. Example:: > + > + void foo(int) > + > + All arguments should have identifier names. > + > **FUNCTION_WITHOUT_ARGS** > Function declarations without arguments like:: >
