From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add double empty line check Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:32:49 +0000 Message-ID: <20121120193249.GH17797@dm> References: <1353151057.14327.18.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> <20121120115239.GA7955@dm> <1353421624.6559.9.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> <20121120144329.GE7955@dm> <1353424027.6559.15.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> <20121120154443.GK7955@dm> <1353427570.6559.21.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> <20121120161417.GA17797@dm> <20121120163607.GB17797@dm> <1353438635.10779.10.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Joe Perches , David Rientjes , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , netdev To: Eilon Greenstein Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1353438635.10779.10.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:10:35PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote: > About the logic - true, if diff will show deleted lines after newly > added lines, some new double line segments will be missed. However, it > seems like few other things will break if diff will start acting out > like that. The suggestion you posted earlier will miss those as well, > and starting to check for this weird case (of deleted lines after the > added lines) does not seem right. Actually the version I sent should indeed cope with the deleted lines regardless of order. It was cirtainly intended to. -apw