From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add some --strict coding style checks Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:16:11 -0800 Message-ID: <1329866171.5143.16.camel@joe2Laptop> References: <20120221151435.GA19354@tuxdriver.com> <20120221.144417.1445117001833888214.davem@davemloft.net> <20120221.154053.2103818562080068513.davem@davemloft.net> <1329857959.5143.11.camel@joe2Laptop> <804857E1F29AAC47BF68C404FC60A18429B3EE@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton , "andrei.emeltchenko.news@gmail.com" , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: "Allan, Bruce W" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <804857E1F29AAC47BF68C404FC60A18429B3EE@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 22:09 +0000, Allan, Bruce W wrote: > This appears to falsely complain about parenthesis alignment in > conditional statements with multiple opening parentheses. For > example, these will report a check condition: > > if (test_and_set_bit(nr, > addr)) > baz(); > > if (!(func_a(x) && > func_b(y))) > baz(); > > Assuming my stupid mailer will screw up the indentation above, the 'a' > in addr in the first example is meant to be immediately below the 'n' > in nr, and the two 'f's in func_* are meant to be vertically lined up > in the second example. You're right, thanks for testing. The logic I used is too trivial. Andrew, please ditch this one for awhile.