On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Finn Thain
<fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BTW, checkpatch reported a few newly-introduced whitespace errors in
patches 03, 05, 16, 24, and 25.
I will check again, but I'm sure those are all deliberate. I examined
all the "errors" and "warnings" before submitting.
checkpatch doesn't really understand the difference between whitespace
used for indentation of statements (according to scope) and whitespace
used for alignment of terms or parameters (when line-wrapped). Any
tool that fails to make that distinction can't be depended upon to
correctly validate the elisp in Documentation/CodingStyle, for
example.
Checkpatch complains because you don't replace a sequence of 8 spaces by
a TAB in continuation lines.
Right. Were such a sequence used for indentation, a tab should be used
instead. After those tabs, spaces are needed for alignment (see elisp
example mentioned above).
But I sure wouldn't want to try to encode that distinction in regexp (as
opposed to comparing a patch with its pretty-printed version, as might be
generated by an actual C parser). So I expect some false positives from
checkpatch.
--
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
