Hello Blue,
I recently stumbled over the following checkpatch.pl false positive:
--8<--
--- a/hw/his.c
+++ b/hw/his.c
@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
- cpu_reset(CPUState *env);
+ cpu_state_reset(CPUState *env);
--- a/hw/hers.c
+++ b/hw/hers.c
@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
- cpu_reset(CPUX86State *env);
+ cpu_state_reset(CPUX86State *env);
--- a/hw/its.c
+++ b/hw/its.c
@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
-cpu_reset(CPUState *env);
+cpu_state_reset(CPUState *env);
--- a/hw/theirs.c
+++ b/hw/theirs.c
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
typedef struct CPUState CPUState;
-cpu_reset(CPUState *env);
+cpu_state_reset(CPUState *env);
--8<--
results in:
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
#5: FILE: hw/his.c:1:
+ cpu_state_reset(CPUState *env);
^
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
#11: FILE: hw/hers.c:1:
+ cpu_state_reset(CPUX86State *env);
^
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
#17: FILE: hw/its.c:1:
+cpu_state_reset(CPUState *env);
^
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
#24: FILE: hw/theirs.c:2:
+cpu_state_reset(CPUState *env);
^
total: 4 errors, 0 warnings, 9 lines checked
So, it seems to interpret the * symbol as multiplication rather than
pointer.
Surprisingly, in my real code, using CPUState in place of CPUX86State
was actually able to remedy the ERROR but not in this simplified test
case. I added some prints around that place and it seems, in the working
CPUState case it didn't even enter the op checking code path.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
