Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <8b6b252b-47a6-9d52-f0bd-10d3bc4ad244@digikod.net>
Date:   Sat, 23 Apr 2022 13:45:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: 
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Subject: clang-format inconsistencies with checkpatch.pl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

I would like to use clang-format (with a pinned version, probably 14) to 
keep a consistent coding style, or at least start with one. However, 
there is some inconsistencies with the checkpatch.pl script:

In some cases, goto labels are indented, which checkpatch.pl doesn't like.

checkpatch.pl complains about some functions (e.g. FIXTURE or 
FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD) that get an open brace just after but without a space.

I also noticed that there is some clang-format configuration lines that 
are commented because of incompatibilities with versions older than 6. 
Shouldn't we require a minimal version, at least the 6th?

About checkpatch.pl, it incorrectly warns about space between function 
name and open parenthesis for *for_each* functions (specifically 
interpreted as "for" statements in .clang-format, e.g. list_for_each_entry).

Regards,
  Mickaël