On 1 August 2017 at 17:50, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/08/2017 18:48, no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
>> ERROR: space prohibited before that '++' (ctx:WxB)
>> #78: FILE: hw/bt/sdp.c:741:
>> + data[len ++] = attribute_id >> 8;
>> ^
>>
>> ERROR: space prohibited before that '++' (ctx:WxB)
>> #79: FILE: hw/bt/sdp.c:742:
>> + data[len ++] = attribute_id & 0xff;
>
> This is the preexisting Bluetooth code... I didn't change the space,
> should I have done that?
Judgement call -- I usually fix up existing errors if I'm touching
a bit of code anyway, unless it's a whitespace-only change or a
pure code-motion patch.
>> ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
>> #73: FILE: tests/rtc-test.c:344:
>> + } while(0)
>
> This seems to be more common than "while (0)" inside macros, should we
> allow it in checkpatch.pl?
Overall the space is much more common: 551 examples with the
space vs 90 without; so I don't think a relaxation of checkpatch
is particularly justified. I don't think macros need to be any
different from the rest of our code on things like spacing.
thanks
-- PMM
