On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 19:35 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 08/04/2020 à 04:14, Joe Perches a écrit :
> > This works rather better:
> > Perhaps you could test?
[]
> I'm looking at some modification done in the last month that could have
> been spotted by the above script.
>
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/usb/phy/phy-jz4770.c
>
> correctly spots the 3 first cases, but the 3 last (line 202, 210 and
> 217) are missed.
> I don't understand why.
It has to do with checkpatch's single statement parsing.
This case:
if (foo)
dev_warn(...);
is parsed as a single statement but
if (foo) {
dev_warn(...);
};
is parsed as multiple statements so for the
second case
dev_warn(...);
is analyzed as a separate statement.
The regex match for this missing newline test expects
that each printk is a separate statement so the first
case doesn't match.
Clearly the regex can be improved here.
cheers, Joe
