lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v5 00/26] Re-use nvram module

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Finn Thain
> <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >> BTW, checkpatch reported a few newly-introduced whitespace errors in
> >> patches 03, 05, 16, 24, and 25.
> >
> > I will check again, but I'm sure those are all deliberate. I examined
> > all the "errors" and "warnings" before submitting.
> >
> > checkpatch doesn't really understand the difference between whitespace
> > used for indentation of statements (according to scope) and whitespace
> > used for alignment of terms or parameters (when line-wrapped). Any
> > tool that fails to make that distinction can't be depended upon to
> > correctly validate the elisp in Documentation/CodingStyle, for
> > example.
>
> Checkpatch complains because you don't replace a sequence of 8 spaces by
> a TAB in continuation lines.

Right. Were such a sequence used for indentation, a tab should be used
instead. After those tabs, spaces are needed for alignment (see elisp
example mentioned above).

But I sure wouldn't want to try to encode that distinction in regexp (as
opposed to comparing a patch with its pretty-printed version, as might be
generated by an actual C parser). So I expect some false positives from
checkpatch.

--

>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-17 11:01    [W:0.160 / U:2.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site