Hi
Checkpatch in current mainline outputs following errors:
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -q --file ./fs/udf/misc.c

ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)

#205: FILE: fs/udf/misc.c:205:

+       tag *tag_p;

            ^
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -q --file ./fs/udf/unicode.c

ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)

#48: FILE: fs/udf/unicode.c:48:

+int udf_build_ustr(struct ustr *dest, dstring *ptr, int size)

                                               ^

(...)
I think the code is ok.
Marcin

--

I'd say "don't add any new typedefs" (and perhaps get rid of old ones).
--

It should be doing that at the site of the new typedef :)
-apw

--

Additionally, yes.

Given:
typedef struct {

	...

} tag_t;

void foo(void)

{

	tag_t name;

}
A user adding
+	tag_t newthing;
could at the same time give the struct a name if it already does not

have one and instead use
+	struct tag newthing;
then.

--

Yep the code is clearly correct.  Can I have the whole patch fragment

you got these against so I can figure out why we are unable to detect

these two as types, I would expect us to have done so.  Also what

version of checkpatch is this?  There is a version string at the top.
-apw

--

It's current Linus git tree (both checkpatch and "testcase").
Marcin

--

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: john@smith.net

---

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 *);

EOF

ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxB)

#7: FILE: f.c:1:

+foo(int a, my_uint32 *);

                      ^
total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 2 lines checked
--

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: john@smith.net

---

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....
-apw

--

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
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: john@smith.net

---

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 *);

                      ^
--

Ok, I guess thats fair criticism.  Could you check out the current

checkpatch-next (0.14-8-g3737366 or later -9, -10 etc), and see if

that works.  It seems to on the simple examples you sent me :).
Thanks.
-apw

--

Confirmed with 0.14-8-g3737366.
Thanks!
Benny
Oh, and I really liked the fact that you print the patch file name
--