Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756032AbZA0Qe2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:34:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753061AbZA0QeU (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:34:20 -0500 Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:42001 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752571AbZA0QeT (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:34:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:34:18 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Adrian Bunk Cc: apw@canonical.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Checkpatch false positive? Message-ID: <20090127163418.GE8289@duck.suse.cz> References: <20090127154904.GC8289@duck.suse.cz> <20090127160601.GA20342@localhost.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090127160601.GA20342@localhost.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1693 Lines: 51 On Tue 27-01-09 18:06:01, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 04:49:05PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've used checkpatch.pl to verify one of my patches. It complains: > > > > ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line > > #167: FILE: fs/quota/quota_tree.c:249: > > + for (i = 0, ddquot = buf + sizeof(struct qt_disk_dqdbheader); > > [...] > > i++, ddquot += info->dqi_entry_size); > > > > But the code looks like: > > for (i = 0, ddquot = buf + sizeof(struct qt_disk_dqdbheader); > > i < qtree_dqstr_in_blk(info) && !qtree_entry_unused(info, ddquot); > > i++, ddquot += info->dqi_entry_size); > > > > Which is IMHO correct. Maybe it's because the for has actually empty body > > and the ; is at the end of the line with for. But I didn't find anything in > > CodingStyle that would forbid > > for (...); > > and > > for (...) > > ; > > Looks a bit strange. > > for (...); is a common C programming error, usually it's some kind of: > > for(........); > do_something(); > > This code does something different than intended. > And yes, we had such bugs in the kernel. > > > for(........) > ; > > is correct. The "looks a bit strange" is what actually tells readers > what the code is doing (and that the author did it intentionally). OK, makes some sence. Thanks for explanation. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- 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/