Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753295AbYHLOZX (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752139AbYHLOZL (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:11 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:38307 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752175AbYHLOZK (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Andy Whitcroft , Randy Dunlap , Joel Schopp cc: Kernel development list Subject: Possible false positive in checkpatch Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 820 Lines: 34 The following appears to be a false positive in checkpatch: ERROR: space prohibited after that '*' (ctx:BxW) #163: FILE: drivers/usb/core/usb.c:304: +#define usb_device_pm_ops (* (struct pm_ops *) 0) ^ Certainly this is a rather uncommon code construction, but similar ones might occur elsewhere. To my eyes, (* (type *) ptr) looks better than (*(type *) ptr) or (*(type *)ptr) or even (*(type*)ptr) but of course this is a matter of opinion. Is there any strong feeling about this in the kernel community? Alan Stern -- 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/