Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --fix option for OPEN_BRACE issues | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Wed, 18 Nov 2020 12:39:00 -0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 01:52 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:28 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:15 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:09 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 00:03 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 18:10 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote: > > > > > > > Brace style misuses of the following types are now > > > > > > > corrected: > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > @@ -3937,9 +3937,23 @@ sub process { > > > > > > > #print "pre<$pre_ctx>\nline<$line>\nctx<$ctx>\nnext<$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]>\n"; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if ($ctx !~ /{\s*/ && defined($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) && $lines[$ctx_ln - 1] =~ /^\+\s*{/) { > > > > > > > - ERROR("OPEN_BRACE", > > > > > > > - "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" . > > > > > > > - "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n"); > > > > > > > + if (ERROR("OPEN_BRACE", > > > > > > > + "that open brace { should be on the previous line\n" . > > > > > > > + "$here\n$ctx\n$rawlines[$ctx_ln - 1]\n") && > > > > > > > + $fix) { > > > > > > > + my $line1 = $rawlines[$ctx_ln - 2]; > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you sure that in a patch context this line always starts with /^\+/ ? > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > I followed it from the other fixes for OPEN_BRACE which were already > > > > > there. In the patch context if the lines are added then only I think the fix > > > > > should be triggered. Other instances should not be modified. > > > > > > > > As far as I know there are no existing uses of --fix with OPEN_BRACE. > > > > > > > > > > I think you added it via 8d1824780f2f1 ("checkpatch: add --fix option > > > for a couple OPEN_BRACE misuses") > > > > The difference here is that you are dealing with a $stat context and > > the existing --fix entries are just for single line fixes. > > > > Hi, > Ya I understand that. Though I am dealing with $stat content, > I am also directly accessing $rawlines here. > So I think that should have the proper patch line format, starting > with + or - or so. > > So in this case if the error is triggered, checking for /^+/ should be done > becase it would be wrong to fix the others with /^[- ]/ > > Is there something else that I am not getting here?
$stat does not include lines that are skipped if the lines start with -
Patch context may be:
line content
1 func(... 2 - original arguments); 3 + changed);
where $stat does not include the 'original arguments' changed line
func(..., changed);
but the $rawlines[] entries are consecutive.
Anyway, this needs to be handled very carefully if handled at all.
I think it's easier to avoid handling these cases and let the patch submitter fix it manually if appropriate.
| |