On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 16:32 -0800, Tom Rix wrote: > On 1/27/22 2:47 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > + Miguel (the clang-format maintainer), Joe (checkpatch maintainer) > > These criticisms are worth reviewing. > > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:38 PM Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > checkpatch reports several hundred formatting errors. Run these files > > > > through clang-format and knock off some of them. > > > > > > > That method seems like a good recipe for endless churn unless checkpatch > > > and clang-format really agree about these style rules. > > > > > > Why use checkpatch to assess code style, if we could simply diff the > > > existing source with the output from clang-format... but it seems that > > > clang-format harms readability, makes indentation errors and uses > > > inconsistent style rules. Some examples: > > Problems with clang-format should be fixed, I'll take a look. > > I was reviewing this file for another issue and could not get past how > horredously bad it was and really did not want to manually fix the 400+ > formatting errors. I will drop this patch and use the use these files > to verify the .clang-format . I think this is more an issue with clang-format than with checkpatch. If you have specific issues with what checkpatch reports for this file (or any other file), let me know.
