Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:26:36 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch |
| |
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote: > > The following appears to be a false positive in checkpatch: > > > > ERROR: space prohibited after that '*' (ctx:BxW) > > #163: FILE: drivers/usb/core/usb.c:304: > > +#define usb_device_pm_ops (* (struct pm_ops *) 0) > > ^ > > > > Certainly this is a rather uncommon code construction, but similar > > ones might occur elsewhere. To my eyes, > > > > (* (type *) ptr) > > > > looks better than > > > > (*(type *) ptr) > > > > or > > > > (*(type *)ptr) > > > > or even > > > > (*(type*)ptr) > > > > but of course this is a matter of opinion. Is there any strong feeling > > about this in the kernel community? > > > > Personally, I rather strongly prefer (*(type *)ptr).
It's probably safe to say that this is one of those gray areas where one need not adhere strictly to checkpatch's recommendations.
Alan Stern
| |