Re: [RFC patch] checkpatch: test identifier lengths

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:31:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:13:27 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 15:55 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:06:34PM +0530, Yash Omer wrote:
> > > > This patch fix line should not end with open parenthesis found by checkpatch.plscript.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yash Omer <yashomer0007@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > index 52054a528723..39fb737543b5 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > @@ -383,8 +383,8 @@ static void nvec_request_master(struct work_struct *work)
> > > >  		msg = list_first_entry(&nvec->tx_data, struct nvec_msg, node);
> > > >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nvec->tx_lock, flags);
> > > >  		nvec_gpio_set_value(nvec, 0);
> > > > -		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> > > > -				&nvec->ec_transfer, msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> > > > +		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout
> > > > +			(&nvec->ec_transfer, msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> > > 
> > > The original code is basically fine...  It's OK to ignore checkpatch in
> > > this situation.
> > 
> > Right.
> 
> Yes, I'd say that checkpatch is simply wrong here.  I'd prefer that a
> function call always have the opening paren hard up against the
> function name.  Because I often search for "foo(" to find the callsites
> of foo() and I expect that some code-parsing tools do the same thing. 
> The "(" is the application of an operator to an identifier.
> 
> So I'd vote for simply nuking that checkpatch warning altogether. 

That's my vote as well, I do that same type of search.

thanks,

greg k-h