[LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Andrea Cervesato]

From: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>

The PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT and OPEN_ENDED_LINE strict checks flag common
LTP formatting that is otherwise accepted, so disable them.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>
---
 .checkpatch.conf | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/.checkpatch.conf b/.checkpatch.conf
index a7b6219adac5fff663c99a4cafaafb7c609233a6..0b22f7811cc891e91c62565edb0663df1e0f2622 100644
--- a/.checkpatch.conf
+++ b/.checkpatch.conf
@@ -17,3 +17,6 @@
 
 # ENOSYS is used in test error macros
 --ignore ENOSYS
+
+# LTP does not enforce open parenthesis alignment nor forbid a trailing '('
+--ignore PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT,OPEN_ENDED_LINE

---
base-commit: 7ca5dc366a558f3666223e6abe579edd90bafd38
change-id: 20260714-checkpatch_remove_rules-e942ef47a23d

Best regards,
-- 
Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Andrea, Cyril,

I found both rules useful (more readable and more consistent code). Can we put
it back? Over the years you will recognise on the code of single test that it
was written/modified by several people with a different styles. And that makes
it less readable.

* PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT check enforces space behind 'while' or 'if'.
i.e. instead of:
	while(tst_fzsync_run_b(&fzsync_pair)) {
have:
	while (tst_fzsync_run_b(&fzsync_pair)) {

cve-2014-0196.c mixes 'while()' and 'while ()'. Is it that hard to be
consistent on it?

* OPEN_ENDED_LINE asks for not ending line with '(' or '['.
i.e. instead of this:
	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(
								   tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));
have this:
	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));

It's just my personal preference but I agree with the author of the rule that
enforced style is more readable.

Kind regards,
Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

Hi Petr,

> Hi Andrea, Cyril,
> 
> I found both rules useful (more readable and more consistent code). Can we put
> it back? Over the years you will recognise on the code of single test that it
> was written/modified by several people with a different styles. And that makes
> it less readable.
> 
> * PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT check enforces space behind 'while' or 'if'.
> i.e. instead of:
> 	while(tst_fzsync_run_b(&fzsync_pair)) {
> have:
> 	while (tst_fzsync_run_b(&fzsync_pair)) {
> 
> cve-2014-0196.c mixes 'while()' and 'while ()'. Is it that hard to be
> consistent on it?

im not sure that rule is checking for spaces after the statements. that
rule is avoiding stuff like:

	ruleset_fd = SAFE_LANDLOCK_CREATE_RULESET(ruleset_attr,
																						sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0);

because parenthesis should allign the attributes of the functions. that
is super ugly when functions have really long names. Instead, this would
make much more sense:


	ruleset_fd = SAFE_LANDLOCK_CREATE_RULESET(ruleset_attr,
							     sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0);

> 
> * OPEN_ENDED_LINE asks for not ending line with '(' or '['.
> i.e. instead of this:
> 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(
> 								   tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));
> have this:
> 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));

you choose the right example, landlock testing suite has been updated to
match this rule and now it has stuff like:

	apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr, sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
				path_beneath_attr, MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

instead of

	apply_landlock_fs_layer(
				ruleset_attr,
				sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
				path_beneath_attr,
				MNTPOINT,
				LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV
	);

that is more clear what are the functions attributes.

For the second one, maybe it's more like a personal preference, but the
first rule is actually generating a lot of weird code when functions and
attributes have long names, forcing to write long lines without staying
into the 80-100 chars.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Andrea,

> Hi Petr,

> > Hi Andrea, Cyril,

> > I found both rules useful (more readable and more consistent code). Can we put
> > it back? Over the years you will recognise on the code of single test that it
> > was written/modified by several people with a different styles. And that makes
> > it less readable.

> > * PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT check enforces space behind 'while' or 'if'.
> > i.e. instead of:
> > 	while(tst_fzsync_run_b(&fzsync_pair)) {
> > have:
> > 	while (tst_fzsync_run_b(&fzsync_pair)) {

> > cve-2014-0196.c mixes 'while()' and 'while ()'. Is it that hard to be
> > consistent on it?

> im not sure that rule is checking for spaces after the statements. that

I'm sorry, indeed, that is checked by SPACING which is still on.

> rule is avoiding stuff like:

> 	ruleset_fd = SAFE_LANDLOCK_CREATE_RULESET(ruleset_attr,
> 																						sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0);

> because parenthesis should allign the attributes of the functions. that
> is super ugly when functions have really long names. Instead, this would
> make much more sense:


> 	ruleset_fd = SAFE_LANDLOCK_CREATE_RULESET(ruleset_attr,
> 							     sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0);

Yes, it forces alignment after '('. Example of fix in the kernel:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/1421748570-14282-2-git-send-email-Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com/

 		pr_err("Could not register clock provider for node:%s\n",
-			 np->name);
+		       np->name);

I'd say it depends how your displays tabs (if tabs are in the sources, we have
.editorconfig, but not all not all developers have their editor set to use it).
In certain setup it does not look OK + the problem of inconsistency, but I'm ok
to ignore it.

> > * OPEN_ENDED_LINE asks for not ending line with '(' or '['.
> > i.e. instead of this:
> > 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(
> > 								   tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> > 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));
> > have this:
> > 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> > 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));

> you choose the right example, landlock testing suite has been updated to
> match this rule and now it has stuff like:

> 	apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr, sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
> 				path_beneath_attr, MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

In my personal preference is this above better ...

> instead of

> 	apply_landlock_fs_layer(
> 				ruleset_attr,
> 				sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
> 				path_beneath_attr,
> 				MNTPOINT,
> 				LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV
> 	);

... than this. Why? Instead of 2 lines you have 7 lines. That would be ok, if we all
use portrait screens, but most of us code on landscape. (Too much scrolling.)

IMHO you introduced that style, which is still not widely used in the code.
Sooner or later we will have mix of 2 styles even in the single source file
which will be less readable.

> that is more clear what are the functions attributes.

Maybe this is is slightly more readable, but for me it does not pay off the
numer of extra lines. And functions with more than 3 parameters are hard to read
anyway (specially if passed parameters are just numbers).

> For the second one, maybe it's more like a personal preference, but the
> first rule is actually generating a lot of weird code when functions and
> attributes have long names, forcing to write long lines without staying
> into the 80-100 chars.

I'm ok with ignoring OPEN_ENDED_LINE, but I vote for putting back
PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT.

Kind regards,
Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

> I'd say it depends how your displays tabs (if tabs are in the sources, we have
> .editorconfig, but not all not all developers have their editor set to use it).
> In certain setup it does not look OK + the problem of inconsistency, but I'm ok
> to ignore it.

At the moment i use the standard kernel guidelines for TAB (8 spaces)

> 
> > > * OPEN_ENDED_LINE asks for not ending line with '(' or '['.
> > > i.e. instead of this:
> > > 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(
> > > 								   tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> > > 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));
> > > have this:
> > > 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> > > 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));
> 
> > you choose the right example, landlock testing suite has been updated to
> > match this rule and now it has stuff like:
> 
> > 	apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr, sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
> > 				path_beneath_attr, MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

For some reason my email client is not showing the correct spaces in the
example:

my_ret_val = apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr, sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
                                     path_beneath_attr, MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

or:


my_ret_val = apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr,
                                     sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
                                     path_beneath_attr,
                                     MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

to escape the 80-100 lines rule.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Petr Vorel]

> > I'd say it depends how your displays tabs (if tabs are in the sources, we have
> > .editorconfig, but not all not all developers have their editor set to use it).
> > In certain setup it does not look OK + the problem of inconsistency, but I'm ok
> > to ignore it.

> At the moment i use the standard kernel guidelines for TAB (8 spaces)


> > > > * OPEN_ENDED_LINE asks for not ending line with '(' or '['.
> > > > i.e. instead of this:
> > > > 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(
> > > > 								   tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> > > > 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));
> > > > have this:
> > > > 	ruleset_fd = TST_EXP_FD_SILENT(tst_syscall(__NR_landlock_create_ruleset, ruleset_attr,
> > > > 						   sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1), 0));

> > > you choose the right example, landlock testing suite has been updated to
> > > match this rule and now it has stuff like:

> > > 	apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr, sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
> > > 				path_beneath_attr, MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

> For some reason my email client is not showing the correct spaces in the
> example:

> my_ret_val = apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr, sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
>                                      path_beneath_attr, MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

> or:


> my_ret_val = apply_landlock_fs_layer(ruleset_attr,
>                                      sizeof(struct tst_landlock_ruleset_attr_abi1),
>                                      path_beneath_attr,
>                                      MNTPOINT, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV);

> to escape the 80-100 lines rule.

As I wrote, I prefer more arguments in the line than a single one.

Anyway, I tend to send RFC patch to add OPEN_ENDED_LINE, to see what others
think about it. But if you're strongly against it, I would not want to enforce
you.

Kind regards,
Petr

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[linuxtestproject.agent]

Hi Andrea,

On Tue, Jul 14 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

Verdict - Reviewed

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] checkpatch: relax parenthesis style checks

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

Merged, Thanks!

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp