On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 15:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
[]
> @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ long vfs_truncate(struct path *path, lof
> {
> struct inode *inode;
> long error;
> + wobble();
>
> inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
Patch content can be a bit odd when lines are
both added and deleted so checkpatch bleats
only when both lines are added.
+ int foo;
+ wibble();
generates a complaint.
int foo;
+ wibble_wobble();
does not.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
