I think that allowing a prefix is reasonable (to allow modules to add more flexibility). I tried the suggested change and it still didn't work for me.
The following change worked for me: (?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z_]*\s*\(| But, maybe it is better to be even more general and allow: (?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[ A-Z0-9_]*\s*\(| Thanks a lot for the quick (and great) response! Dotan > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Perches [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM > To: Dotan Barak > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl report about "Missing blank line after > declarations" in a structure definition > > On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 14:14 +0000, Dotan Barak wrote: > > Hi Joe. > > > > The patch that you mentioned solved most of the issues, thanks! > > > > However, there is still one more warning of this type within a struct > declaration. > > > > # ./checkpatch.pl --file --no-tree ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h > > > > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations > > #508: FILE: ../include/linux/mlx5/driver.h:508: > > + struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari; > > + MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock); > > > > > > <snip start> > > struct mlx5_priv { > > char name[MLX5_MAX_NAME_LEN]; > > struct mlx5_eq_table eq_table; > > struct mlx5_uuar_info uuari; > > MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL_LOCK(cq_uar_lock); > > MLX5_DECLARE_DOORBELL is not a "normal" DECLARE macro. > > Perhaps the exception for the DECLARE_<FOO> declaration macros in the > exceptions list: > > (?:$Storage\s+)?(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(| > > could be expanded to: > > (?:$Storage\s+)?[A-Z0-9_]*(?:DECLARE|DEFINE)_[A-Z]+\s*\(| > -- 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/
