From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753569AbbFSKbe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:31:34 -0400
Received: from ni.piap.pl ([195.187.100.4]:55104 "EHLO ni.piap.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751406AbbFSKb0 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:31:26 -0400
From: khalasa@piap.pl (Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Ha=C5=82asa?=)
To: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coding style details (checkpatch)
References: <m3r3p8rt7w.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
	<CAH6sp9M7R3chHA+FPG6WV5LqwPy7+TDy1P9qjcfmNAGzALhKOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:31:24 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAH6sp9M7R3chHA+FPG6WV5LqwPy7+TDy1P9qjcfmNAGzALhKOg@mail.gmail.com>
	(Frans Klaver's message of "Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:07:33 +0200")
Message-ID: <m3fv5ornur.fsf_-_@t19.piap.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 1
X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Lua-Profiles: 79565 [Jun 19 2015]
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Version: 5.5.6
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Envelope-From: khalasa@piap.pl
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Rate: 0
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not_detected
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Method: none
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Moebius-Timestamps: 3607859, 3607879, 3607209
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Info: LuaCore: 230 2015-06-18_15-19-46 a57002d05d325a1ca642728c4b1d1e7603231830, Auth:dkim=none
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: scan successful
X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: Clean, 2015/06/18 15:23:24
X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security 8.0 for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.1.721, bases: 2015/06/19 04:50:00 #8335832
X-KLMS-AntiVirus-Status: Clean, skipped
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> writes:

>> #define REG8_1(a0) ((const u16[8]){a0, a0 + 1, a0 + 2, a0 + 3})
>>
>> vs
>>
>> #define REG8_1(a0) ((const u16[8]) {a0, a0 + 1, a0 + 2, a0 + 3})
>>                                 ^^^^^
>
> The prescribed style is to have no space between cast and castee. So,
> the top option.

Thanks. That's what I thought. It looks that checkpatch doesn't like
this:

ERROR: space required before the open brace '{'
+#define REG8_1(a0) ((const u16[8]){a0, a0 + 1, a0 + 2, a0 + 3})

Does this qualify as the "false positive"?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Industrial Research Institute for Automation and Measurements PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warsaw, Poland