| Message ID | 20230228184245.1585775-1-bjorn@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/2] lib/test_string.c: Make definition less dense | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 1 and now 1 |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/alphanumeric_selects | success | Out of order selects before the patch: 728 and now 728 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 11 this patch: 11 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 24 lines checked |
| conchuod/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 8:42 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> wrote: > > From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> > > Checkpatch seems to have trouble making sense of the situation when > struct definitions, variable definitions, and __initconst marking is > done in one go. > > Let's be nicer to checkpatch, and move the struct definition out, > which removes the error. Not that I'm against the patch, but how hard is it to fix the checkpatch? In case you go this way with a patch, it probably makes sense to move test data out of the function as well with something like strspn_test_data name.
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 8:42 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com> >> >> Checkpatch seems to have trouble making sense of the situation when >> struct definitions, variable definitions, and __initconst marking is >> done in one go. >> >> Let's be nicer to checkpatch, and move the struct definition out, >> which removes the error. > > Not that I'm against the patch, but how hard is it to fix the checkpatch? Uhm, good one. I'll have a look (the .pl scared me off).
diff --git a/lib/test_string.c b/lib/test_string.c index c5cb92fb710e..550229084c41 100644 --- a/lib/test_string.c +++ b/lib/test_string.c @@ -179,15 +179,17 @@ static __init int strnchr_selftest(void) return 0; } +struct strspn_test { + const char str[16]; + const char accept[16]; + const char reject[16]; + unsigned int a; + unsigned int r; +}; + static __init int strspn_selftest(void) { - static const struct strspn_test { - const char str[16]; - const char accept[16]; - const char reject[16]; - unsigned a; - unsigned r; - } tests[] __initconst = { + static const struct strspn_test tests[] __initconst = { { "foobar", "", "", 0, 6 }, { "abba", "abc", "ABBA", 4, 4 }, { "abba", "a", "b", 1, 1 },