linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] FBTFT: fb_sh: Fix alignment and style problems Fixed Coding style issues Signed-off-by: Tamir Suliman <tsuliman@...uxvaults.com>

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:20:27 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Tamir Suliman <tsuliman@...uxvaults.com>,
        thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] FBTFT: fb_sh: Fix alignment and style problems
 Fixed Coding style issues Signed-off-by: Tamir Suliman
 <tsuliman@...uxvaults.com>

On Sat, 2018-06-30 at 14:32 +0000, Tamir Suliman wrote:
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Adding to what Greg's patchbot already wrote:

> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_sh1106.c
[]
> @@ -36,27 +36,27 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  	par->fbtftops.reset(par);
>  
>  	/* Set Display OFF */
> -	write_reg(par, 0xAE);
> +		write_reg(par, 0xAE);


Nope.

You are overly indenting already correctly indented code.
Statements start in the same column unless following an
if/for/do/while/else/case.

> @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ static void set_addr_win(struct fbtft_par *par, int xs, int ys, int xe, int ye)
>  
>  static int blank(struct fbtft_par *par, bool on)
>  {
> -	fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(blank=%s)\n",
> -		      __func__, on ? "true" : "false");
> +	fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_BLANK, par, "%s(_func_=%s)\n",
> +			__func__, on ? "true" : "false");

Again, nope.

Here you are misaligning a multi-line continuation
which is correctly aligned to the open parenthesis.