On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 22:15 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/10/21, Scott Matheina wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 10:33 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 15/10/21, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 12:10 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> >>> On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote:
> >>>> On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina
wrote:
> >> []
> >>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> >> []
> >>>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct
rcu_head *head)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct
audit_entry, rcu);
> >>>>>> audit_free_rule(e);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>> Why?
> >>>> I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the
warning
> >>>> went away after adding this line. No problem with the code.
> >>> That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should
be
> >>> tween the declaration and the function call.
> >> checkpatch message asks for a blank line after the
> >> "struct audit_entry *e = ..." declaration.
> > Well then maybe it is a bug in his interpretation of the output of
> > checkpatch.pl? Scott, did you re-run checkpatch.pl after adding those
> > spaces? Did it pass?
>
> The error did go away.
Joe, I confirm the error went away. Looks like a bug in checkpatch.pl
to me.
It's not a bug in checkpatch.
checkpatch doesn't care if there are blank lines between declarations.
Here's the output of checkpatch for this area:
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#111: FILE: kernel/auditfilter.c:111:
+ struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu);
+ audit_free_rule(e);
That doesn't suggest putting a blank line before line 111.
It suggests putting a blank line after the declaration of e.