Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <3cf12c9eae59e4014865866529e580d7d0ede020.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Detect suspicious indentation after conditional
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:55:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAODwPW_rdHnkKuAhCxbF9Lb3bPvAKR54G1wowFGyoDQ_sp-3Cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210326035035.3057800-1-jwerner@chromium.org>
         <CAODwPW_rdHnkKuAhCxbF9Lb3bPvAKR54G1wowFGyoDQ_sp-3Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 14:18 -0700, Julius Werner wrote:
> *friendly ping*
> 
> Hi Andy, Joe,
> 
> Any comments on this patch series? Are you guys the right point of
> contact for checkpatch changes?

I don't have any issue with this patch set, but Andy is really
the person that should approve any changes to this block of code.

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> wrote:
> > 
> > This patch series is adding functionality to checkpatch.pl to test for
> > incorrect code indentation after a conditional statement, like this:
> > 
> > ?if (a)
> > ???b;
> > ???c;
> > 
> > (Indentation implies that `c;` was guarded by the conditional, but it
> > isn't.) The main part is re-sending a patch from Ivo Sieben that was
> > already proposed in 2014 [1]. I don't know why it was never merged --
> > it seems that there was no discussion on it. I hope that it was only
> > overlooked, because it works great, and I think this is a very important
> > class of common error to catch.
> > 
> > I have tested it extensively on the kernel tree and in the course of
> > that found a few more edge cases that get fixed by the other two
> > patches. With all these applied, the vast majority of hits I get from
> > this check on the kernel tree are actual indentation errors or other
> > code style violations (e.g. case label and statement on the same line).
> > The only significant remaining group of false positives I found are
> > cases of macros being defined within a function, which are overall very
> > rare. I think the benefit of adding this check would far outweigh the
> > remaining amount of noise.
> > 
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/465116
> > 
> > Ivo Sieben (1):
> > ??Suspicious indentation detection after conditional statement
> > 
> > Julius Werner (2):
> > ??checkpatch: ctx_statement_block: Fix preprocessor guard tracking
> > ??checkpatch: Ignore labels when checking indentation
> > 
> > ?scripts/checkpatch.pl | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > ?1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --
> > 2.29.2
> >