On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 14:40 +0000, Betty Dall wrote:
> I reviewed this and tested it out on the qib.h file we were looking at
> yesterday
> and it worked well. I was worried about a nested do {} while(0), because it
> will
> match with the first while. Here is a test case:
> #define qib_devinfo(pcidev, fmt, ...) \
> do { \
> do { \
> dev_info(&(pcidev)->dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> } while (0); \
> } while (0)
>
> Checkpatch.pl didn't complain about that one. Granted, it is a contrived test
> case. Your change will catch the real problems.
Hi Betty.
Wow, you're thorough. Thanks for testing.
I don't mind that it doesn't work in all cases.
I suppose this would fail for loops too.
checkpatch is a pretty limited tool as it depends on
the code being compilable and doesn't really understand
c syntax. It is just a convenience tool and lots of
its logic is incomplete and some of its output can be
happily ignored.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
