[PATCH 1/1] dt: fix some code indent issue in of.h
apw at canonical.com
Wed Dec 21 06:37:04 EST 2011
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 07:06:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 02:57 +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
> > > On 12/20/2011 12:10 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng at linaro.org>
> > > > Checkpatch script will report some warnings for the old coding style:
> > > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 0)
> > > > for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index
> > > > @@ -163,22 +163,22 @@ extern struct device_node *of_find_node_by_name(struct
> > > device_node *from,
> > > > const char *name);
> > > > #define for_each_node_by_name(dn, name) \
> > > > for (dn = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, name); dn; \
> > > > - dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > > > + dn = of_find_node_by_name(dn, name))
> > > The old way looks fine to me and indenting like this is commonly used in the
> > > kernel.
> > Yes, i was also ok without those annoying warning.
> > Do you think if we need to fix the checkpatch.pl if the it is commonly used
> > In the kernel?
> I don't. I think it's better for people to realize that
> checkpatch is and will always be an imperfect tool and
> that they should learn to ignore inappropriate warnings.
Right. Checkpatch is simply a helper, if you have checkpatch warnings
in a patch you are submitting then you need to be able to mentally
justify them. It is there to catch the basic stuff that wastes so much
of the reviewers time and to help you get your patches accepted quicker.
It is not a substitute for your own common sense.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel