On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Finn Thain
> <fth...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >> BTW, checkpatch reported a few newly-introduced whitespace errors in
> >> patches 03, 05, 16, 24, and 25.
> >
> > I will check again, but I'm sure those are all deliberate. I examined
> > all the "errors" and "warnings" before submitting.
> >
> > checkpatch doesn't really understand the difference between whitespace
> > used for indentation of statements (according to scope) and whitespace
> > used for alignment of terms or parameters (when line-wrapped). Any
> > tool that fails to make that distinction can't be depended upon to
> > correctly validate the elisp in Documentation/CodingStyle, for
> > example.
>
> Checkpatch complains because you don't replace a sequence of 8 spaces by
> a TAB in continuation lines.
Right. Were such a sequence used for indentation, a tab should be used
instead. After those tabs, spaces are needed for alignment (see elisp
example mentioned above).
But I sure wouldn't want to try to encode that distinction in regexp (as
opposed to comparing a patch with its pretty-printed version, as might be
generated by an actual C parser). So I expect some false positives from
checkpatch.
--
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
