From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753001AbaIVDtJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2014 23:49:09 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0232.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.232]:54792 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752209AbaIVDtH (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2014 23:49:07 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1981:2194:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3653:3865:3866:3867:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:7652:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12663:12740:13019:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: milk73_6c64e07b8be43 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1993 Message-ID: <1411357743.2952.25.camel@joe-AO725> Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: checkpatch.pl: Fix existing typedef false positive warning From: Joe Perches To: Greg Donald Cc: Andy Whitcroft , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:49:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1411349544-7479-1-git-send-email-gdonald@gmail.com> <1411353090.2952.19.camel@joe-AO725> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 22:08 -0500, Greg Donald wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 20:32 -0500, Greg Donald wrote: > >> Fixing an "open brace '{' following struct go on the same line" error causes a > >> false positive warning "do not add new typedefs". Fix existing typedef false > >> positive warning. > > > > This doesn't work. > > The matching deleted line can be any number of lines above. > > But this fixes the most common case: > > -typedef struct ksock_proto > -{ > +typedef struct ksock_proto { Meh. I think people are smart enough to work out that this is not a new typedef. > If you're wanting to check more than just $rawlines[$linenr - 3], how > far above does it make sense to go? From what I'm seeing the '{' is > usually on the next line. It's not the most common case working, it's the generic case working. It's in a large block being changed, it doesn't work. If it's checking a file, there are no "-" lines.