Re: [PATCH v2] w1: Replace usage of found with dedicated list iterator variable

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 12/05/2023 13:17, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> On 23/05/12 12:26PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/05/2023 12:19, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>> How strange, I just checked and my checkpatch doesn't complain.
>>>
>>> I also redownloaded and double checked 
>>> (b4 am 20230509-w1-replace-usage-of-found-with-tmp-list-iterator-variable-v2-1-259bf1ba44ed@xxxxxxxxx).
>>>
>>> What's the exact issue you are seeing?
>>
>>   ✓ [PATCH v2] w1: Replace usage of found with dedicated list iterator
>> variable
>>     + Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230509-w1-replace-usage-of-found-with-tmp-list-iterator-variable-v2-1-259bf1ba44ed@xxxxxxxxx
>>     + Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>   ---
>>   ✗ No key: ed25519/jkl820.git@xxxxxxxxx
>>   ✓ Signed: DKIM/gmail.com
>> ---
>> Total patches: 1
>> ---
>>  Base: using specified base-commit eeac8ede17557680855031c6f305ece2378af326
>> Applying: w1: Replace usage of found with dedicated list iterator variable
>> [Checking commit]  12b61e664c29 w1: Replace usage of found with
>> dedicated list iterator variable
>> [Checkpatch]
>> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
>> #70: FILE: drivers/w1/w1.c:849:
>> +			if (iter->reg_num.family == id->family &&
>> +					iter->reg_num.id == id->id &&
> 
> I tried a bunch of things but I can't see this message. I tried with 'checkpatch.pl' from different kernel commits.
> 
> I did:
> 
>   b4 am 20230509-w1-replace-usage-of-found-with-tmp-list-iterator-variable-v2-1-259bf1ba44ed@xxxxxxxxx
>   scripts/checkpatch.pl ./v2_20230510_jkl820_git_w1_replace_usage_of_found_with_dedicated_list_iterator_variable.mbx
> 
> and always get:
> 
>   total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 64 lines checked
> 
>   ./v2_20230510_jkl820_git_w1_replace_usage_of_found_with_dedicated_list_iterator_variable.mbx has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> 

First - the missing indentation is visible with bare eyes, you can also
fix it without checking in checkpatch.

It seems you are not running checkpatch with --strict. If you want to
see the exact error - run with strict.

Best regards,
Krzysztof