On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:56 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Hi again Hugues.
> here is the output with the last version of the script:
> https://paste.ubuntu.com/24333124/
>
> Differences are on the macro cases and the //foo \ *bar, no more warned.
Thanks.
I guess my only real concern
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:56 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> Hi Joe,
Hi again Hugues.
> here is the output with the last version of the script:
> https://paste.ubuntu.com/24333124/
>
> Differences are on the macro cases and the //foo \ *bar, no more warned.
Thanks.
I guess my only real concern
Hi Joe,
here is the output with the last version of the script:
https://paste.ubuntu.com/24333124/
Differences are on the macro cases and the //foo \ *bar, no more warned.
BR,
Hugues.
On 04/05/2017 03:26 PM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>
>
> On 04/05/2017 11:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed,
Hi Joe,
here is the output with the last version of the script:
https://paste.ubuntu.com/24333124/
Differences are on the macro cases and the //foo \ *bar, no more warned.
BR,
Hugues.
On 04/05/2017 03:26 PM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>
>
> On 04/05/2017 11:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed,
On 04/05/2017 11:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
>>>
>>> Hello Hugues
>>>
I have run the
On 04/05/2017 11:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>
>> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
>>>
>>> Hello Hugues
>>>
I have run the
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>
> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> > > Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
> >
> > Hello Hugues
> >
> > > I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code,
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 09:43 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>
> On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> > > Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
> >
> > Hello Hugues
> >
> > > I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code,
On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>> Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
>
> Hello Hugues
>
>> I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
>> the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
>>
On 04/05/2017 10:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>> Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
>
> Hello Hugues
>
>> I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
>> the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
>>
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
Hello Hugues
> I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
> the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
> There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:23 +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
Hello Hugues
> I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
> the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
> There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify
Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify that there
are no false positives, but I have checked the output carefully
Hi Joe, thanks for reviewing,
I have run the command you advice on the entire kernel code, modifying
the script to only match the newly introduced check case.
There was 14389 hits, quite huge, so I cannot 100% certify that there
are no false positives, but I have checked the output carefully
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 10:08 +0200, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
> Warn when block comments are not starting with blank comment:
>
> /* multiple lines
> * block comment,
> * => warning
> */
>
> /*
> * multiple lines
> * block comment,
> * => no warning
> */
>
> Exception made for networking
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 10:08 +0200, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
> Warn when block comments are not starting with blank comment:
>
> /* multiple lines
> * block comment,
> * => warning
> */
>
> /*
> * multiple lines
> * block comment,
> * => no warning
> */
>
> Exception made for networking
Warn when block comments are not starting with blank comment:
/* multiple lines
* block comment,
* => warning
*/
/*
* multiple lines
* block comment,
* => no warning
*/
Exception made for networking files where rule is the
exact opposite.
Signed-off-by: Hugues Fruchet
Warn when block comments are not starting with blank comment:
/* multiple lines
* block comment,
* => warning
*/
/*
* multiple lines
* block comment,
* => no warning
*/
Exception made for networking files where rule is the
exact opposite.
Signed-off-by: Hugues Fruchet
---
Hi checkpatch maintainers,
here is a patch tentative to raise a warning when multiple line block comments
are not starting with empty blank comment:
Warn when block comments are not starting with blank comment:
/* multiple lines
* block comment,
* => warning
*/
/*
*
Hi checkpatch maintainers,
here is a patch tentative to raise a warning when multiple line block comments
are not starting with empty blank comment:
Warn when block comments are not starting with blank comment:
/* multiple lines
* block comment,
* => warning
*/
/*
*
20 matches
Mail list logo
