linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition argument without identifier name issue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:06:02 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mikhail Golubev <golubev.mikhail@...il.com>
Cc:     forest@...ttletooquiet.net, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition
 argument without identifier name issue

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote:
> Function definitions arguments should also have an identifier name as reported by checkpatch.pl.

Please wrap your changelog comments at 72 columns.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Golubev <golubev.mikhail@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
> index 7cc1387..fe1c25c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
> @@ -86,15 +86,15 @@ struct vnt_phy_field {
>  unsigned int vnt_get_frame_time(u8 preamble_type, u8 pkt_type,
>  				unsigned int frame_length, u16 tx_rate);
>  
> -void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *, u32 frame_length,
> -		       u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *);
> -
> -void vnt_set_short_slot_time(struct vnt_private *);
> -void vnt_set_vga_gain_offset(struct vnt_private *, u8);
> -void vnt_set_antenna_mode(struct vnt_private *, u8);
> -int vnt_vt3184_init(struct vnt_private *);
> -void vnt_set_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *);
> -void vnt_exit_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *);
> -void vnt_update_pre_ed_threshold(struct vnt_private *, int scanning);
> +void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *priv, u32 frame_length,
> +		       u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *phy);
> +

Really?  Since when is this a coding style requirement?

Don't use --strict, it's not worth it for stuff like this, there are far
worse-off files in drivers/staging/ than this one.

thanks,

greg k-h