On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:27:04PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:52 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> Andy, thanks for reviewing this patch.
>
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > Changes from previous attempt:
> > > - Use CHK instead of WARN
> > > - Issue only one warning per empty lines block
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein <eil...@broadcom.com>
> > > ---
> > > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/linescheckpatch.pl
> > > index 21a9f5d..13d264f 100755
> > > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > > @@ -3579,6 +3579,14 @@ sub process {
> > > WARN("EXPORTED_WORLD_WRITABLE",
> > > "Exporting world writable files is usually an
> > > error. Consider more restrictive permissions.\n" . $herecurr);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +# check for double empty lines
> > > + if ($line =~ /^\+\s*$/ &&
> > > + ($rawlines[$linenr] =~ /^\s*$/ ||
> > > + $prevline =~ /^\+?\s*$/ && $rawlines[$linenr] !~
> > > /^\+\s*$/)) {
> > > + CHK("DOUBLE_EMPTY_LINE",
> > > + "One empty line should be sufficient. Consider
> > > removing this one.\n" . $herecurr);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > # If we have no input at all, then there is nothing to report on
> >
> > In your previous version you indicated you would be emiting one per group
> > of lines, I do not see how this does that.
>
> This is what I'm testing:
> Only if the current line is a new blank line and:
> if the next line is empty but not newly added (this is the part that
> will make sure we get only one warning for a bunch of new lines - only
> the last newly added line will hit this condition)
> or
> if the previous line was empty (either new empty line or existing empty
> line) and the next line is not a new empty line (so we will issue just
> one warning).
>
> I tested it on few examples, and did not see a problem. Can you share an
> example where it issues more than a single warning for a newly
> introduced consecutive new lines?
No indeed. That was testing failure on my behalf.
>
> > Also this fails if the fragment
> > is at the top of the hunk emiting a perl warning.
>
> I did not see this warning. Can you please share this example? I tried
> adding a couple of empty lines at the beginning of a file and it seemed
> to work just fine for me (using perl v5.14.2).lines
Ok, this is actually if it is at the bottom, not the top. So if you
have a range of lines newly added to the bottom of the file. Leading to
this warning:
Use of uninitialized value within @rawlines in pattern match (m//) at
../checkpatch/scripts/checkpatch.pl line 3586.
-apw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
