clang-format inconsistencies with checkpatch.pl

clang-format inconsistencies with checkpatch.pl

[Mickaël Salaün]

Hi,

I would like to use clang-format (with a pinned version, probably 14) to 
keep a consistent coding style, or at least start with one. However, 
there is some inconsistencies with the checkpatch.pl script:

In some cases, goto labels are indented, which checkpatch.pl doesn't like.

checkpatch.pl complains about some functions (e.g. FIXTURE or 
FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD) that get an open brace just after but without a space.

I also noticed that there is some clang-format configuration lines that 
are commented because of incompatibilities with versions older than 6. 
Shouldn't we require a minimal version, at least the 6th?

About checkpatch.pl, it incorrectly warns about space between function 
name and open parenthesis for *for_each* functions (specifically 
interpreted as "for" statements in .clang-format, e.g. list_for_each_entry).

Regards,
  Mickaël

Re: clang-format inconsistencies with checkpatch.pl

[Miguel Ojeda]

Hi Mickaël,

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:45 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> I also noticed that there is some clang-format configuration lines that
> are commented because of incompatibilities with versions older than 6.
> Shouldn't we require a minimal version, at least the 6th?

I will be increasing this cycle the version to 11, which is the
minimum LLVM supported at the moment, and then keep it sync'd to that
minimum.

> About checkpatch.pl, it incorrectly warns about space between function
> name and open parenthesis for *for_each* functions (specifically
> interpreted as "for" statements in .clang-format, e.g. list_for_each_entry).

Note that the prevailing kernel style is to not have a space. This
should be fixed with the increase to 11.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: clang-format inconsistencies with checkpatch.pl

[Mickaël Salaün]

On 23/04/2022 18:14, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Mickaël,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:45 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>
>> I also noticed that there is some clang-format configuration lines that
>> are commented because of incompatibilities with versions older than 6.
>> Shouldn't we require a minimal version, at least the 6th?
> 
> I will be increasing this cycle the version to 11, which is the
> minimum LLVM supported at the moment, and then keep it sync'd to that
> minimum.

OK, thanks.

> 
>> About checkpatch.pl, it incorrectly warns about space between function
>> name and open parenthesis for *for_each* functions (specifically
>> interpreted as "for" statements in .clang-format, e.g. list_for_each_entry).
> 
> Note that the prevailing kernel style is to not have a space. This
> should be fixed with the increase to 11.

I was talking about the ForEachMacros exceptions. Should these be 
removed or at least not updated for new for_each functions [1]?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220412153906.428179-1-mic@digikod.net

Re: clang-format inconsistencies with checkpatch.pl

[Mickaël Salaün]

On 23/04/2022 13:45, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to use clang-format (with a pinned version, probably 14) to 
> keep a consistent coding style, or at least start with one. However, 
> there is some inconsistencies with the checkpatch.pl script:
> 
> In some cases, goto labels are indented, which checkpatch.pl doesn't like.

This can be fixed with SplitEmptyFunction: false. I'll send a patch for 
that if it's OK with you.

> 
> checkpatch.pl complains about some functions (e.g. FIXTURE or 
> FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD) that get an open brace just after but without a space.

Miguel, do you know how/if clang-format can enforce that style? FIXTURE 
macros are struct declarations though.