MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230228184245.1585775-1-bjorn@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230228184245.1585775-1-bjorn@kernel.org>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:03:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfK3RM+SP90d3nOXEobY81Xd_94tLL=Qt86mmdNwXaQpg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] lib/test_string.c: Make definition less dense
To:     =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@rivosinc.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 8:42=E2=80=AFPM Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel <bjorn@kernel=
.org> wrote:
>
> From: Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
>
> Checkpatch seems to have trouble making sense of the situation when
> struct definitions, variable definitions, and __initconst marking is
> done in one go.
>
> Let's be nicer to checkpatch, and move the struct definition out,
> which removes the error.

Not that I'm against the patch, but how hard is it to fix the checkpatch?

In case you go this way with a patch, it probably makes sense to move
test data out of the function as well with something like
strspn_test_data name.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko