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
Hi Mickaël,
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:45 PM Mickaël Salaün <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?
I will be increasing this cycle the version to 11, which is the
minimum LLVM supported at the moment, and then keep it sync'd to that
minimum.
> 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).
Note that the prevailing kernel style is to not have a space. This
should be fixed with the increase to 11.
Cheers,
Miguel
On 23/04/2022 18:14, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Mickaël,
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:45 PM Mickaël Salaün <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> I will be increasing this cycle the version to 11, which is the
> minimum LLVM supported at the moment, and then keep it sync'd to that
> minimum.
OK, thanks.
>
>> 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).
>
> Note that the prevailing kernel style is to not have a space. This
> should be fixed with the increase to 11.
I was talking about the ForEachMacros exceptions. Should these be
removed or at least not updated for new for_each functions [1]?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
On 23/04/2022 13:45, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 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.
This can be fixed with SplitEmptyFunction: false. I'll send a patch for
that if it's OK with you.
>
> checkpatch.pl complains about some functions (e.g. FIXTURE or
> FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD) that get an open brace just after but without a space.
Miguel, do you know how/if clang-format can enforce that style? FIXTURE
macros are struct declarations though.