On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 01:02:11AM -0700, David Gow wrote:
> > ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line
> > #869: FILE: lib/list-test.c:680:
> > +static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> >
> >
> > I am seeing these error and warns. As per our hallway conversation, the
> > "for_each*" in the test naming is tripping up checkpatch.pl
> >
> > For now you can change the name a bit to not trip checkpatch and maybe
> > explore fixing checkpatch to differentiate between function names
> > with "for_each" in them vs. the actual for_each usages in the code.
>
> Thanks, Shuah.
>
> Yes, the problem here is that checkpatch.pl believes that anything
> with "for_each" in its name must be a loop, so expects that the open
> brace is placed on the same line as for a for loop.
>
> Longer term, I think it'd be nicer, naming-wise, to fix or work around
> this issue in checkpatch.pl itself, as that'd allow the tests to
> continue to follow a naming pattern of "list_test_[x]", where [x] is
> the name of the function/macro being tested. Of course, short of
> trying to fit a whole C parser in checkpatch.pl, that's going to
> involve some compromises as well.
Just make it a black list of the 5 most common for_each macros.
>
> In the meantime, I'm sending out v7 which replaces "for_each" with
> "for__each" (adding the extra underscore), so that checkpatch is
> happy.
It's better to ignore checkpatch and other scripts when they are wrong.
(unless the warning message inspires you to make the code more readable
for humans).
regards,
dan carpenter
