Hi,

This series brings some improvements to the clang-format configuration
to make it compatible with the checkpatch.pl rules:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/8b6b252b-47a6-9d52-f0bd-10d3bc4ad244@digikod.net

I also found that the for_each issue has already been talk about here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHmME9ofzanQTBD_WYBRW49d+gM77rCdh8Utdk4+PM9n_bmKwA@mail.gmail.com/

I use these changes for Landlock.

This is based on v5.18-rc5.

Previous version:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220412153906.428179-1-mic@digikod.net

Regards,

Mickaël Salaün (5):
  clang-format: Update and extend the for_each list with tools/
  clang-format: Update to clang-format >= 6
  clang-format: Fix goto labels indentation
  clang-format: Fix empty curly braces
  clang-format: Fix space after for_each macros

 .clang-format | 216 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 169 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)


base-commit: 672c0c5173427e6b3e2a9bbb7be51ceeec78093a
-- 
2.35.1

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:00 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
>   clang-format: Update and extend the for_each list with tools/
>   clang-format: Update to clang-format >= 6
>   clang-format: Fix goto labels indentation
>   clang-format: Fix space after for_each macros

These 4 applied (with the mentioned changes, and on top of a few
cleanups to simplify the first patch etc.) in -next.

After -rc1, I will submit an RFC series with other clang-format 6..11
features that we can now enable but that merit more discussion.

Let's get the ball rolling! :)

Cheers,
Miguel

Miguel, what do you think about this series? Do you plan to take it for 
the next merge window? FYI, I plan to use it for Landlock [1] and send 
it for the next merge window. Could you publish your pending 
clang-format changes so that I can make sure everything is OK?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220506160513.523257-1-mic@digikod.net

On 06/05/2022 18:01, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This series brings some improvements to the clang-format configuration
> to make it compatible with the checkpatch.pl rules:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/8b6b252b-47a6-9d52-f0bd-10d3bc4ad244@digikod.net
> 
> I also found that the for_each issue has already been talk about here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHmME9ofzanQTBD_WYBRW49d+gM77rCdh8Utdk4+PM9n_bmKwA@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> I use these changes for Landlock.
> 
> This is based on v5.18-rc5.
> 
> Previous version:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220412153906.428179-1-mic@digikod.net
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mickaël Salaün (5):
>    clang-format: Update and extend the for_each list with tools/
>    clang-format: Update to clang-format >= 6
>    clang-format: Fix goto labels indentation
>    clang-format: Fix empty curly braces
>    clang-format: Fix space after for_each macros
> 
>   .clang-format | 216 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 169 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> base-commit: 672c0c5173427e6b3e2a9bbb7be51ceeec78093a

Hi Mickaël,

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> Miguel, what do you think about this series? Do you plan to take it for
> the next merge window? FYI, I plan to use it for Landlock [1] and send
> it for the next merge window. Could you publish your pending
> clang-format changes so that I can make sure everything is OK?

It looked good to me overall (though it indeed conflicts with what I
was doing) -- I will take it for the next merge window. I am thinking
of putting Brian as author and you as Co-developed-by for the last one
to be fair (Brian: is this OK with you too?). Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

On 11/05/2022 17:29, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Mickaël,
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>
>> Miguel, what do you think about this series? Do you plan to take it for
>> the next merge window? FYI, I plan to use it for Landlock [1] and send
>> it for the next merge window. Could you publish your pending
>> clang-format changes so that I can make sure everything is OK?
> 
> It looked good to me overall (though it indeed conflicts with what I
> was doing) -- I will take it for the next merge window.

Good. Please keep me in the loop, I would like to try your changes as 
soon as possible (before you make a PR).

> I am thinking
> of putting Brian as author and you as Co-developed-by for the last one
> to be fair (Brian: is this OK with you too?).

Looks fair.

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:29 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am thinking
> of putting Brian as author and you as Co-developed-by for the last one
> to be fair (Brian: is this OK with you too?). Thanks!

I don't care at all either way; it's a pretty trivial thing, and I
only posted mine to kick the wheels a bit. I'm just happy Mickaël is
doing this :)

Regards,
Brian