Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't warn on every struct without const_structs file

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 16:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 07:01 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 15:03 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > The script says that it won't warn:
> > > "No structs that should be const will be found [...]"
> > > 
> > > but then that doesn't work and it warns on every single struct
> > > instead, since the regular expression ends up empty. Fix that
> > > by checking that it's not empty first.
> > 
> > nak.
> > 
> > How does const_structs end up empty for you?
> 
> I copied checkpatch elsewhere and ran it.

Why do you want to copy checkpatch "someplace else"?
Instead of copy, I think you should soft link it.

> Regardless, the current code is utterly stupid - it prints a warning
> that it won't flag any structs, and then proceeds to flag all structs.
> 
> If you must, send a patch to abort() [whatever the perl equivalent is]
> when the file can't be found, but as it is, the code is just idiotic.

Maybe so.

As is, your patch description is incomplete because
it doesn't mention your use case.