Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

[Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

* Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> From: Peter Jones <pjones-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> 
> This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
>   *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
>   */
>  #define NULL_GUID \
> -    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> +	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> +		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
>  
>  #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
> -    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> +	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> +		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)

So I really think this is a step backwards.

Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:


	#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
	...
	#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE

... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.

Thanks,

	Ingo