On 30/10/2019 20.15, 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
How about changing the check so it only matches the
if/while/for/*for_each*/ thing when it's the first thing on a line _and_
has non-trivial whitespace in front. Then a function declaration as
static void test_for_each()
{
would not fire, nor would it if it were written in the other common style
static void
test_for_each()
{
?
Maybe there'd still be a problem at the call-sites
test_for_each();
this_is_not_indented;
but the ending semi-colon should actually make it appear as a loop with
an empty body (though that in itself might fire a different warning,
dunno if checkpatch has that kind of warnings). But in any case the
above should remove _some_ false positives.
Rasmus
