On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:15:30PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 21:46 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Hm... I imagined the checkpatch code a little different in my head but
> > this would also work to make it stricter. I doubt it miss very many
> > real life style problems.
>
> Well, doubts vs reality...
>
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -3607,7 +3607,7 @@ sub process {
> >
> > # if/while/etc brace do not go on next line, unless defining a do while loop,
> > # or if that brace on the next line is for something else
> > - if ($line =~ /(.*)\b((?:if|while|for|switch|(?:[a-z_]+|)for_each[a-z_]+)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/ && $line !~ /^.\s*\#/) {
> > + if ($line =~ /(.*)\b((?:if|while|for|switch|(?:list|hlist)_for_each[a-z_]+)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/ && $line !~ /^.\s*\#/) {
> > my $pre_ctx = "$1$2";
> >
> > my ($level, @ctx) = ctx_statement_level($linenr, $realcnt, 0);
>
> So - nak
>
What I mean is that only the people doing list_for_each and
hlist_for_each don't know how to do it right. I just tested this over
night and my assumptions were correct. Here are all the lines that
generate a warning:
+ hlist_for_each_entry_safe(tmp_fil, n, head, fnode)
+static void list_test_list_for_each_prev(struct kunit *test)
+static void list_test_list_for_each_safe(struct kunit *test)
+static void list_test_list_for_each_prev_safe(struct kunit *test)
+static void list_test_list_for_each_entry(struct kunit *test)
+static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test)
+ hlist_for_each_entry_safe(x6spi, n,
+ list_for_each_entry(w, &card->widgets, list)
Only the first and last warnings are real style problems and my patch
catches both.
regards,
dan carpenter
