On Feb. 11, 2008, 18:40 +0200, Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
OK, but the return type doesn't have to be in the patched line, it could be in a synchronization line or even missing if the function has a long multi-line argument list. > > 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 Your modified patch passes with version 0.12 as well as checkpatch.pl-next However, the following patch that has the return type in the synchronization lines still produces the same error: $ ./checkpatch.pl-next - Signed-off-by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- diff a/f.c b/f.c --- a/f.c +++ b/f.c @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ int +foo(int a, my_uint32 *); int +bar(int a, my_uint32_t *); ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxB) #8: FILE: f.c:2: +foo(int a, my_uint32 *); ^ total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 lines checked > > -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/ -- 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/
