From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1454173334.7329.14.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging:iio:adc:added space around '-' From: Joe Perches To: Dan Carpenter , Jonathan Cameron Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Michael.Hennerich@analog.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pmeerw@pmeerw.net, Bhumika Goyal Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:02:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20160130151213.GC13219@mwanda> References: <115dd2e3f67706fd323c18b23871068ad36dfa94.1452878721.git.bhumirks@gmail.com> <56995378.1010204@metafoo.de> <20160120142137.GC6370@mwanda> <56A4FD7F.6010800@kernel.org> <56A5068D.4080207@metafoo.de> <56ACC4D2.8040802@kernel.org> <20160130151213.GC13219@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 18:12 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We could make checkpatch.pl not complain if the line says checkpatch: > on > it.  It would look like this. > > -               in_voltage-voltage_thresh_low_value, > +               in_voltage-voltage_thresh_low_value, /* checkpatch: > not math */ > > I suppose I could have made the explanation longer since the it won't > complain about the 80 character limit...  What do yo/u guys think? Maybe use a more generic thing like the checkpatch type                in_voltage-voltage_thresh_low_value, /* checkpatch-SPACING */ Even so, it might uglify checkpatch code a lot to check something like this per-line or per-block. And that likely would have to be per line in the code as checkpatch couldn't see when a patch block addition occurs outside the scope of a comment. I suppose inside checkpatch the "sub report {" function could be extended to look at the specific $rawline being tested for any "checkpatch" comment and if so, test if it's the specific $type.