Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed Trivial Warnings in file: Deleted Spaces prior to tabs, and added lines. modified: kernel/auditfilter.c | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:54:32 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 22:15 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 15/10/21, Scott Matheina wrote: > > On 10/21/2015 10:33 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > On 15/10/21, Joe Perches wrote: > > >> On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 12:10 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > >>> On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote: > > >>>> On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > >>>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina wrote: > > >> [] > > >>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c > > >> [] > > >>>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) > > >>>>>> { > > >>>>>> struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu); > > >>>>>> audit_free_rule(e); > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> } > > >>>>> Why? > > >>>> I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the warning > > >>>> went away after adding this line. No problem with the code. > > >>> That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should be > > >>> tween the declaration and the function call. > > >> checkpatch message asks for a blank line after the > > >> "struct audit_entry *e = ..." declaration. > > > Well then maybe it is a bug in his interpretation of the output of > > > checkpatch.pl? Scott, did you re-run checkpatch.pl after adding those > > > spaces? Did it pass? > > > > The error did go away. > > Joe, I confirm the error went away. Looks like a bug in checkpatch.pl > to me.
It's not a bug in checkpatch.
checkpatch doesn't care if there are blank lines between declarations.
Here's the output of checkpatch for this area:
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations #111: FILE: kernel/auditfilter.c:111: + struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu); + audit_free_rule(e);
That doesn't suggest putting a blank line before line 111. It suggests putting a blank line after the declaration of e.
| |