Re: [RFC v5 00/26] Re-use nvram module

[Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Finn Thain 
> <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >> BTW, checkpatch reported a few newly-introduced whitespace errors in 
> >> patches 03, 05, 16, 24, and 25.
> >
> > I will check again, but I'm sure those are all deliberate. I examined 
> > all the "errors" and "warnings" before submitting.
> >
> > checkpatch doesn't really understand the difference between whitespace 
> > used for indentation of statements (according to scope) and whitespace 
> > used for alignment of terms or parameters (when line-wrapped). Any 
> > tool that fails to make that distinction can't be depended upon to 
> > correctly validate the elisp in Documentation/CodingStyle, for 
> > example.
> 
> Checkpatch complains because you don't replace a sequence of 8 spaces by 
> a TAB in continuation lines.

Right. Were such a sequence used for indentation, a tab should be used 
instead. After those tabs, spaces are needed for alignment (see elisp 
example mentioned above).

But I sure wouldn't want to try to encode that distinction in regexp (as 
opposed to comparing a patch with its pretty-printed version, as might be 
generated by an actual C parser). So I expect some false positives from 
checkpatch.

-- 

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert