Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/5] [RFC] Add HAX support

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 14/11/2016 09:21, Vincent Palatin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:20 AM,  <no-reply@patchew.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Your series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
>> more information:
>>
>> Type: series
>> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/5] [RFC] Add HAX support
>> Message-id: cover.1478863621.git.vpalatin@chromium.org
>>
>> === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>> BASE=base
>> n=1
>> total=$(git log --oneline $BASE.. | wc -l)
>> failed=0
>>
>> # Useful git options
>> git config --local diff.renamelimit 0
>> git config --local diff.renames True
>>
>> commits="$(git log --format=%H --reverse $BASE..)"
>> for c in $commits; do
>>     echo "Checking PATCH $n/$total: $(git show --no-patch --format=%s $c)..."
>>     if ! git show $c --format=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback -; then
>>         failed=1
>>         echo
>>     fi
>>     n=$((n+1))
>> done
>>
>> exit $failed
>> === TEST SCRIPT END ===
>>
>> Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384
>> Switched to a new branch 'test'
>> b9d801a Plumb the HAXM-based hardware acceleration support
>> c855846 hax: simplify init
>> 577d188 hax: remove non UG code
>> edf12f7 target-i386: Add Intel HAX files
>> cfebedf kvm: move cpu synchronization code
>>
>> === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
>> fatal: unrecognized argument: --no-patch
>> Checking PATCH 1/5: ...
>> fatal: unrecognized argument: --no-patch
>> Checking PATCH 2/5: ...
>> fatal: unrecognized argument: --no-patch
>> Checking PATCH 3/5: ...
>> fatal: unrecognized argument: --no-patch
>> Checking PATCH 4/5: ...
>> fatal: unrecognized argument: --no-patch
>> Checking PATCH 5/5: ...
>> ERROR: spaces required around that '-' (ctx:WxV)
>> #158: FILE: cpus.c:1276:
>> +        if (SuspendThread(cpu->hThread) == (DWORD) -1) {
>>                                                     ^
>>
>> ERROR: spaces required around that '-' (ctx:WxV)
>> #176: FILE: cpus.c:1294:
>> +        if (ResumeThread(cpu->hThread) == (DWORD) -1) {
>>                                                    ^
>>
> 
> Apparently I missed this couple of warnings when I did my final checkpatch pass.
> At the same time, I have no idea how to solve this one, can anybody
> enlighten me ?
> Having a space on both sides of a unary minus doesn't seem what we want,
> so I imagine something else is wrong and confuse a bit checkpatch.pl.

Yes, I think it's the Win32 "DWORD" type that confuses it.  You can
ignore it.

Paolo