Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:30:02 +0000 | Subject | Re: Lindent formatting issues | From | Laszlo Papp <> |
| |
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 16:17 +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > [] >> > You could also use scripts/checkpatch.pl with >> > the --fix option. >> > >> > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f --fix <file> >> > >> > with various --types=<TYPE,...> options. >> > >> > Maybe use: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/23/504 >> >> Thanks Joe. I seem to have further issues with this tool... I tried to >> run it on a file I patched, but it generated a lot of noise unrelated >> to my logical change... :( > > checkpatch is really for patches. Using -f is a > convenience ability. You can limit what messages > checkpatch emits by using "--types=<FOO[,BAR...]>" > > You can show what message classifications are being > used by adding "--show-types". > >> Do you happen to know what the best way is to fix it in such cases? I >> am providing some examples below: >> >> if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr >> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr >> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr >> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr >> - || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) { >> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr >> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr >> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr >> + || devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) { > > Well, here the general kernel style is to put > the logical && or || test at the end of the > previous line so: > > if (devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_max_alarm.dev_attr || > devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_min_alarm.dev_attr || > devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_fan1_fault.dev_attr || > devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio1_alarm.dev_attr || > devattr == &sensor_dev_attr_gpio2_alarm.dev_attr) { > > would likely be preferred. > >> - int n) >> + int n) > > This may be indentation alignment but I don't follow > how this is a problem.
It is a problem because it is a noise for a logical change that is not about whitespace fixup. The kernel maintainer would probably rightfully reject it with such a line in.
> >> - int sysfs_modes[4] = {0, 1, 2, 1}; >> + int sysfs_modes[4] = { 0, 1, 2, 1 }; > > Is this change from Lindent or checkpatch?
I have used Lindent when these lines were generated. Here is some more:
- data->dac = 180 - (180 * pwm)/255; + data->dac = 180 - (180 * pwm) / 255; else - data->dac = 76 - (76 * pwm)/255; + data->dac = 76 - (76 * pwm) / 255;
...
- .probe = max6650_probe, - .remove = max6650_remove, - .id_table = max6650_id, + .probe = max6650_probe, + .remove = max6650_remove, + .id_table = max6650_id,
...
- const char *buf, size_t count) + const char *buf, size_t count)
| |