Commit 328b5f41 authored Sep 04, 2018 by Joe Perches Committed by Linus Torvalds Sep 04, 2018

checkpatch: add optional static const to blank line declarations test

Using a static const struct definition as part of a series of
declarations produces a false positive "Missing a blank line after
declarations" for code like:

  WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
  #710: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_scale_coefs.c:137:
  +       int inc;
  +       static const struct {

So fix it.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/5905126e70b0ed1781e49265fd5c49c5090d0223.camel@perches.com


Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Reported-by: Jyri Sarha <jsarha@ti.com>
Cc: "Valkeinen, Tomi" <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

parent 9c21dae2

scripts/checkpatch.pl

+1 −1

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -3311,7 +3311,7 @@ sub process {
		# known declaration macros
		$sline =~ /^\+\s+$declaration_macros/ \|\|
		# start of struct or union or enum
		$sline =~ /^\+\s+(?:union\|struct\|enum\|typedef)\b/ \|\|
		$sline =~ /^\+\s+(?:static\s+)?(?:const\s+)?(?:union\|struct\|enum\|typedef)\b/ \|\|
		# start or end of block or continuation of declaration
		$sline =~ /^\+\s+(?:$\|[\{\}\.\#\"\?\:\(\[])/ \|\|
		# bitfield continuation

Admin message