* Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Peter Jones <pjo...@redhat.com>
>
> This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjo...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> ---
> include/linux/efi.h | 63
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
> * EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
> */
> #define NULL_GUID \
> - EFI_GUID( 0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> + EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> + 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
>
> #define MPS_TABLE_GUID \
> - EFI_GUID( 0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27,
> 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> + EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> + 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
So I really think this is a step backwards.
Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:
#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
...
#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.
Thanks,
Ingo
