From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0022.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.22]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC492C0092 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 08:45:33 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <1394228725.16156.102.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: rfc: checkpatch logical line continuations (was IBM Akebono: Add support for a new PHY interface to the IBM emac driver) From: Joe Perches To: josh@joshtriplett.org Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:45:25 -0800 In-Reply-To: <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> <20140307213017.GA18769@cloud> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter , alistair@popple.id.au, Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, David Miller List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 13:30 -0800, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > 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. I agree with that. Stuff that's not in CodingStyle generally doesn't have a developer consensus. > > 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. And probably made specific to net/ and drivers/net like a few other comment style tests until such time as a consensus exists.