On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 06:05:48PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
quoted text
> 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 *);

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.pl-next

-apw
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/