On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:28:40 -0800 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > Networking prefers this style, so warn when it's not used.
> > void foo(int bar)
> > {
> > int baz;
> >
> > code...
> > }
> >
> > not
> >
> > void foo(int bar)
> > {
> > int baz;
> > code...
> > }
> >
> > There are a limited number of false positives when using
> > macros to declare variables like:
> >
> > WARNING: networking uses a blank line after declarations
> > #330: FILE: net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c:330:
> > + int dif = sk->sk_bound_dev_if;
> > + INET_ADDR_COOKIE(acookie, saddr, daddr)
>
> um wait wut wot.
>
> *All* kernel code uses blank line between end-of-locals and
> start-of-code. Or if it doesn't it should, thwap.
> Why are we special-casing net/?
It's easy enough to remove the path test, but it's
not in CodingStyle and David seems to be the one
that makes the effort to correct people about it.
I don't care one way or another.
I'm just trying to get fewer rejections for people
that use checkpatch.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
