On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:42:30 -0800 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:28:40 -0800 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > > Networking prefers this style, so warn when it's not used.
> > > void foo(int bar)
> > > {
> > > int baz;
> > >
> > > code...
> > > }
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > void foo(int bar)
> > > {
> > > int baz;
> > > code...
> > > }
> > >
> > > There are a limited number of false positives when using
> > > macros to declare variables like:
> > >
> > > WARNING: networking uses a blank line after declarations
> > > #330: FILE: net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c:330:
> > > + int dif = sk->sk_bound_dev_if;
> > > + INET_ADDR_COOKIE(acookie, saddr, daddr)
> >
> > um wait wut wot.
> >
> > *All* kernel code uses blank line between end-of-locals and
> > start-of-code. Or if it doesn't it should, thwap.
> > Why are we special-casing net/?
>
> It's easy enough to remove the path test, but it's
> not in CodingStyle and David seems to be the one
> that makes the effort to correct people about it.
>
> I don't care one way or another.
>
> I'm just trying to get fewer rejections for people
> that use checkpatch.
mutter.
OK, let's do this for now. Could you please cook up a followon patch
which makes this kernel-wide? I'll play with that for a while then I'll
decide how much I feel like irritating people.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
