From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: josh@joshtriplett.org Subject: Re: rfc: checkpatch logical line continuations (was IBM Akebono: Add support for a new PHY interface to the IBM emac driver) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:30:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20140307213017.GA18769@cloud> References: <1394077948-8395-1-git-send-email-alistair@popple.id.au> <1394077948-8395-3-git-send-email-alistair@popple.id.au> <20140307.154142.488351276799532264.davem@davemloft.net> <1394226164.16156.96.camel@joe-AO722> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1394226164.16156.96.camel@joe-AO722> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches Cc: David Miller , alistair@popple.id.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Dan Carpenter , Randy Dunlap List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:02:44PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 15:41 -0500, David Miller wrote: > > From: Alistair Popple > > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:52:25 +1100 > > > > > + out_be32(dev->reg, in_be32(dev->reg) | WKUP_ETH_RGMIIEN > > > + | WKUP_ETH_TX_OE | WKUP_ETH_RX_IE); > > > > When an expression spans multiple lines, the lines should end with > > operators rather than begin with them. > > That's not in CodingStyle currently. It's also not even remotely consistent across existing kernel code, and it isn't obvious that there's a general developer consensus on the "right" way to write it. > Right now, checkpatch emits a --strict only warning on "&&" or "||" > at the beginning of line but that could be changed to any "$Operators" > > our $Arithmetic = qr{\+|-|\*|\/|%}; > our $Operators = qr{ > <=|>=|==|!=| > =>|->|<<|>>|<|>|!|~| > &&|\|\||,|\^|\+\+|--|&|\||$Arithmetic > }x; > > The ones that likely have a too high false positive rates > are the negation "!" and bitwise "~". I don't think warning about operators at start of line seems like a good idea at all. There are plenty of cases where putting the operator at the start of the line will produce a better result. (I'd actually suggest that in *most* cases.) > Also, using perl, it's hard to distinguish between a > logical "&" and the address-of "&" as well as the > multiplication "*" and indirection "*" so maybe those > should be excluded too. > > And I think it should only be added as a --strict test. Agreed, if even that. - Josh Triplett