Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <a4c9ceb0fb612aa9350423a1e1ce58b2e64fd029.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: CHECKPATCH: strange warning on alignment modifier
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@gmail.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 08 Oct 2018 19:07:30 -0700
In-Reply-To: <15d77776-0551-5b7d-935e-16496c3800e2@gmail.com>
References: <15d77776-0551-5b7d-935e-16496c3800e2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1-1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 10:56 +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have the following fragment of code:
> 
> +struct my_struct {
> +       atomic_long_t l __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> +} __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> 
> 
> triggering this warning, when fed to checkpatch.pl:
> 
> WARNING: function definition argument 'atomic_long_t' should also have 
> an identifier name
> #19: FILE: path/to/file.h
> +	atomic_long_t l __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> 
> 
> gcc [(Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0] seems to be happy about it
> 
> I am using the HEAD from mainline.
> 
> My intent is to specify the alignment of both the field and the 
> structure (yes, probably redundant in this single-field case).
> 
> If I am doing something wrong, I can't figure out what it is, but I 
> don't understand why the WARNING is mentioning a function definition.

It's a defect in checkpatch.
For now, just ignore the message.
I will work on it later.