Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for the 'list' doubly linked list | From | shuah <> | Date | Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:27:12 -0600 |
| |
On 10/30/19 4:42 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 01:02:11AM -0700, David Gow wrote: >>> ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line >>> #869: FILE: lib/list-test.c:680: >>> +static void list_test_list_for_each_entry_reverse(struct kunit *test) >>> +{ >>> >>> >>> I am seeing these error and warns. As per our hallway conversation, the >>> "for_each*" in the test naming is tripping up checkpatch.pl >>> >>> For now you can change the name a bit to not trip checkpatch and maybe >>> explore fixing checkpatch to differentiate between function names >>> with "for_each" in them vs. the actual for_each usages in the code. >> >> Thanks, Shuah. >> >> Yes, the problem here is that checkpatch.pl believes that anything >> with "for_each" in its name must be a loop, so expects that the open >> brace is placed on the same line as for a for loop. >> >> Longer term, I think it'd be nicer, naming-wise, to fix or work around >> this issue in checkpatch.pl itself, as that'd allow the tests to >> continue to follow a naming pattern of "list_test_[x]", where [x] is >> the name of the function/macro being tested. Of course, short of >> trying to fit a whole C parser in checkpatch.pl, that's going to >> involve some compromises as well. > > Just make it a black list of the 5 most common for_each macros. >
How does black listing work in the context of checkpatch.pl?
>> >> In the meantime, I'm sending out v7 which replaces "for_each" with >> "for__each" (adding the extra underscore), so that checkpatch is >> happy.
This change is required just to quiet checkpatch and I am not happy about asking for this change. At the same time, I am concerned about git hooks failing on this patch.
> > It's better to ignore checkpatch and other scripts when they are wrong. > (unless the warning message inspires you to make the code more readable > for humans). >
It gets confusing when to ignore and when not to. It takes work to figure out and it is subjective.
It would be great if we can consistently rely on a tool that is used as a criteria for patches to accept patches.
thanks, -- Shuah
| |