On 1/27/22 6:43 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree. Its a clang-format problem.
I will be looking to minimize the .clang-format settings to only those
that agree with checkpatch.
Then add settings back in later if their problems can be worked out.
Tom
