On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 25/11/17 10:51 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > I don't understand at all the second sentence. Are you staying with the > > same call, or moving on to other calls? Also, it would be the call that > > is split over multiple lines, not the function split over multiple lines. > > Yes, you are correct it should be "call" instead of "function". > > > I think this would have been much easier with Cocccinelle where the code > > is parsed and the control-flow graph is available to see whether there is > > a pr_cont afterwards. But if it works, then it is surely good enough. > > I don't disagree at all. However, to my knowledge, not a lot of kernel > developers run a set of coccinelle scripts on their change sets. The > point is to catch these mistakes before the patch is submitted. I don't know. In any case, a Coccinelle script would get run by the 0-day build testing service, which checks lots of trees. Perhaps both are useful, since Joe had some conerns about the amount of relevant context available in a patch. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
