On Mon, 05 May 2014 13:12:16 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> A couple more modifications to the declarations tests.
>
> o Declarations can also be bitfields so exclude things with a colon
> o Make sure the current and previous lines are indented the same
> to avoid matching some macro where a struct type is passed on
> the previous line like:
>
> next = list_entry(buffer->entry.next,
> struct binder_buffer, entry);
> if (buffer_start_page(next) == buffer_end_page(buffer))
So
checkpatch-always-warn-on-missing-blank-line-after-variable-declaration-block.patch
is stuck in -mm while I evaluate its effects. Thus far that evaluation
has been "super non-intrusive", because the patch doesn't actually
do anything.
--- a/fs/open.c~a
+++ a/fs/open.c
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ int do_truncate(struct dentry *dentry, l
{
int ret;
struct iattr newattrs;
+ wibble();
/* Not pretty: "inode->i_size" shouldn't really be signed. But it is. */
if (length < 0)
@@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ long vfs_truncate(struct path *path, lof
{
struct inode *inode;
long error;
+ wobble();
inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
I add --strict and it still doesn't warn. What did I do wrong this time?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
