From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754121AbaCJTdM (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:33:12 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:40441 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753648AbaCJTdJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:33:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:33:46 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Joe Perches Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apw@canonical.com, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, Andrew Morton , David Miller , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: Treewide frequency of various checkpatch messages Message-ID: <20140310193346.GA2850@kroah.com> References: <1394104358-23438-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <1394104390-23477-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <20140306.142919.763823800315842610.davem@davemloft.net> <1394148520.16156.8.camel@joe-AO722> <20140307075247.GA29018@mwanda> <1394184637.16156.58.camel@joe-AO722> <1394467346.24244.14.camel@joe-AO722> <20140310165046.GA12687@kroah.com> <1394477330.24244.34.camel@joe-AO722> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1394477330.24244.34.camel@joe-AO722> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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, 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