Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl - fix *_NOTIFIER_HEAD handling

["Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:50:47 -0700, Joe Perches said:
> On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 21:36 -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:

> >  				^.DEFINE_$Ident\(\Q$name\E\)|
> >  				^.DECLARE_$Ident\(\Q$name\E\)|
> >  				^.LIST_HEAD\(\Q$name\E\)|
> > -				^.{$Ident}_NOTIFIER_HEAD\(\Q$name\E\)|
> > +				^.${Ident}_NOTIFIER_HEAD\(\Q$name\E\)|
>
> Perhaps also better to convert all the '\Q$name\E' to '\s*\Q$name\E\s*'

Yes, but that would need to be a separate patch.  The question would be if we
consider 'DEFINE_foo( barbaz )' and similar with whitespace to be desirable
style or not.

[/usr/src/linux-next] grep '\\Q$name\\E' scripts/checkpatch.pl
				^.DEFINE_$Ident\(\Q$name\E\)|
				^.DECLARE_$Ident\(\Q$name\E\)|
				^.LIST_HEAD\(\Q$name\E\)|
				^.${Ident}_NOTIFIER_HEAD\(\Q$name\E\)|
				^.(?:$Storage\s+)?$Type\s*\(\s*\*\s*\Q$name\E\s*\)\s*\(|
				\b\Q$name\E(?:\s+$Attribute)*\s*(?:;|=|\[|\()

We already have the \s* in one place. Somebody else can decide if it should
be in the other 5 places or not. :)


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]