On 09/04/2019 17:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> I'm just doing my initial read-through,.. however
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
>>> + if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR)
>>> + && (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") ||
>>> !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>>> continue;
>>
>> could you please not format code like that. Operators go at the end of
>> the line, and continuation should match the indentation of the opening
>> paren. So the above would look like:
>>
>>> + if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) &&
>>> + (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") ||
>>> !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>>> continue;
>>
>> You appear to be doing that quit consistently, and it is against style.
>
> Raphael, as a heads-up, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl can catch issues like
> this. You can run it over a list of patches, so for a patch series you
> can run:
>
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl *.patch
>
> ... and hopefully most of the output will be reasonable.
>
For this particular case, checkpatch only warns about it if you pass it
"--strict" option. So in general it might be useful to include this
option at least for the first pass at including large pieces of code.
Cheers,
--
Julien Thierry
