Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:39:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: latest checkpatch
Message-ID: <20071018193929.GA22031@elte.hu>
References: <20071015182118.GA4459@shadowen.org> <200710161759.l9GHxnkK012590@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20071017163916.GO21136@shadowen.org> <20071018111352.GA17039@elte.hu> <20071018192521.GC21136@shadowen.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071018192521.GC21136@shadowen.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 993
Lines: 34


* Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> > it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl 
> > wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about 
> > the _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block 
> > _except_ the only safe single-line statement:
> > 
> > 	if (x)
> > 		y();
> 
> Indeed.  We should probabally do more on the indentation checks in
> general.  The current direct check for:
> 
> 	if (foo);
> 		bar();
> 
> Could probabally be generalised to look for this kind of error:
> 
> 	if (foo)
> 		bar();
> 		baz();
> 	one();

detecting that would be awesome - it's often the sign of a real bug 
because the intent is often to have bar() and baz() in the conditional 
block.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/