From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
apw@canonical.com, devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Treewide frequency of various checkpatch messages
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:33:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140310193346.GA2850@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394477330.24244.34.camel@joe-AO722>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:48:50AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 09:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:02:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 01:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:54 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > (a question about a new message warning of a missing
> > > blank line between variable declaration blocks and
> > > code in a function)
> > > > > How many warnings does this generate does this generate when you run it
> > > > > across the whole tree?
> > > > A lot.
> > >
> > > Turns out it's 20,210 and it's the 14th
> > > most common checkpatch message type.
> > >
> > > 14 20210 WARNING:SPACING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> >
> > I think it's still worthwhile to clean up.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Luckily, <smile> I don't have to deal with the
> patches that would be generated by this message.
>
> Some people are going to view patches for this as
> useless noise.
That's true for all checkpatch cleanups :)
> Couple of things:
>
> It's kind of interesting how the messages vary by
> subsystem. Let me know if you want any breakdowns.
>
> And there are a small number of false positives for
> this "Missing a blank line" test with declarations
> like:
>
> typedef *foo;
> DECLARE_BITMAP(foo);
> __DECL_REG(foo);
> LIST_HEAD(foo);
>
> So there could be a minor improvement to the test.
>
> I looked at some of the results using:
>
> This sort of match stands out a bit:
>
> ---> arch/tile/lib/spinlock_32.c:68:
> {
> u32 iterations = 0;
> while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock))
> delay_backoff(iterations++);
> }
>
> Instances like this may be fine, but adding blank
> lines to very short functions with a single
> declaration just adds to the overall line count.
>
> I've no strong opinion of the need to write code
> like:
>
> {
> u32 iterations = 0;
>
> while (arch_spin_is_locked(lock))
> delay_backoff(iterations++);
> }
I wonder if there's a way to "count" the size of the function, and only
complain if it's longer than 4-5 lines long?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-10 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-06 11:12 [PATCH 0/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable various offloads K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 11:13 ` [PATCH 1/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable scatter gather I/O K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 11:13 ` [PATCH 2/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Cleanup the send path K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 19:30 ` David Miller
2014-03-06 11:13 ` [PATCH 3/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable offloads on the host K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 19:31 ` David Miller
2014-03-06 19:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2014-03-06 11:13 ` [PATCH 4/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable receive side IP checksum offload K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 19:31 ` David Miller
2014-03-06 11:13 ` [PATCH 5/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable send side " K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 19:33 ` David Miller
2014-03-06 20:29 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-03-06 20:48 ` David Miller
2014-03-06 21:00 ` KY Srinivasan
2014-03-09 18:53 ` Ben Hutchings
2014-03-06 11:13 ` [PATCH 6/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable large send offload K. Y. Srinivasan
2014-03-06 19:34 ` David Miller
2014-03-06 19:29 ` [PATCH 1/6] Drivers: net: hyperv: Enable scatter gather I/O David Miller
2014-03-06 23:28 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: net and drivers/net: Warn on missing blank line after variable declaration Joe Perches
2014-03-06 23:35 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-06 23:42 ` Joe Perches
2014-03-06 23:55 ` Andrew Morton
2014-03-07 0:11 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Always warn on missing blank line after variable declaration block Joe Perches
2014-03-07 7:54 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: net and drivers/net: Warn on missing blank line after variable declaration Dan Carpenter
2014-03-07 9:30 ` Joe Perches
2014-03-10 16:02 ` Treewide frequency of various checkpatch messages Joe Perches
2014-03-10 16:50 ` Greg KH
2014-03-10 18:48 ` Joe Perches
2014-03-10 19:33 ` Greg KH [this message]
2014-03-10 20:11 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140310193346.GA2850@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devel@linuxdriverproject.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox