From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: Treewide frequency of various checkpatch messages
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:48:50 -0700
Message-ID: <1394477330.24244.34.camel@joe-AO722>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apw@canonical.com,
	devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140310165046.GA12687@kroah.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

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, <smile> 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.

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++);
}