On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:02:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 01:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:54 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > (a question about a new message warning of a missing
> > blank line between variable declaration blocks and
> > code in a function)
> > > > How many warnings does this generate does this generate when you run it
> > > > across the whole tree?
> > > A lot.
> >
> > Turns out it's 20,210 and it's the 14th
> > most common checkpatch message type.
> >
> > 14 20210 WARNING:SPACING: Missing a blank line after declarations
>
> I think it's still worthwhile to clean up.
Maybe.
Luckily, <smile> I don't have to deal with the
patches that would be generated by this message.
Some people are going to view patches for this as
useless noise.
Couple of things:
It's kind of interesting how the messages vary by
subsystem. Let me know if you want any breakdowns.
And there are a small number of false positives for
this "Missing a blank line" test with declarations
like:
typedef *foo;
DECLARE_BITMAP(foo);
__DECL_REG(foo);
LIST_HEAD(foo);
So there could be a minor improvement to the test.
I looked at some of the results using:
This sort of match stands out a bit:
---> arch/tile/lib/spinlock_32.c:68:
{
u32 iterations = 0;
while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock))
delay_backoff(iterations++);
}
Instances like this may be fine, but adding blank
lines to very short functions with a single
declaration just adds to the overall line count.
I've no strong opinion of the need to write code
like:
{
u32 iterations = 0;
while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock))
delay_backoff(iterations++);
}
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
