On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 06:05:48PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > I saw this too with checkpatch.pl version 0.12 > It seems like checkpatch.pl knows only about types derived > from @typeList by build_types. > > Example below... > > Benny > > $ cat <<EOF | scripts/checkpatch.pl - > Signed-off-by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- > diff a/f.c b/f.c > --- a/f.c > +++ b/f.c > @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ > +foo(int a, my_uint32 *); > +bar(int a, my_uint32_t *);
But that isn't actually syntactically correct code is it? You have types as parameters like a function declaration, but no return type. So there is no hint to checkpatch that this is a function declaration and therefore the parameters are not expected to be types, nor are they checked as such. The following diff is clean on the latest version of checkpatch: Signed-off-by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- diff a/f.c b/f.c --- a/f.c +++ b/f.c @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ +void foo(int a, my_uint32 *); +int bar(int a, my_uint32_t *); EOF Could you try out the version of checkpatch at the URL below on the real patch you are using to test, and let me know if it works. There are a number of improvements to type tracking in the face of ifdef's and the like. If it doesn't could I have the hunk which fails: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-next -apw -- 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/
