On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:35:22AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Hello Andy,
>
> Apparently the checkpatch.pl script as included in 2.6.36 complains if
> continued lines start with whitespace. An example:
>
> [ ... ]
> +#if defined(MACRO_NAME_1) || defined(MACRO_NAME_2) \
> + || defined(MACRO_NAME_3)
> [ ... ]
>
> checkpatch.pl reports the following warning for the above patch excerpt:
>
> WARNING: please, no space for starting a line,
> excluding comments
>
> Is that a feature or an unintended side effect of recent checkpatch changes ?
My personal expectation would be for that second line to be indented
with a tab. But I might be convinced otherwise?
-apw
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:35:22AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Hello Andy,
> >
> > Apparently the checkpatch.pl script as included in 2.6.36 complains if
> > continued lines start with whitespace. An example:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> > +#if defined(MACRO_NAME_1) || defined(MACRO_NAME_2) \
> > + ?|| defined(MACRO_NAME_3)
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > checkpatch.pl reports the following warning for the above patch excerpt:
> >
> > WARNING: please, no space for starting a line,
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? excluding comments
> >
> > Is that a feature or an unintended side effect of recent checkpatch changes ?
>
> My personal expectation would be for that second line to be indented
> with a tab. ?But I might be convinced otherwise?
There are also other preprocessor directives on which the 2.6.36
checkpatch complains, e.g.:
#warning A very long warning message that takes multiple lines and of which\
the second line starts with a space.
Why does the 2.6.36 checkpatch complain that the second line should
start with a tab instead of a space (which would make the message
really ugly) ?
Bart.