linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/12] staging:rtl8192u: Remove blank lines before '}' and after '{' characters

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:04:45 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     John Whitmore <arigead@...il.com>
Cc:     John Whitmore <johnfwhitmore@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        kstewart@...uxfoundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        aastha.gupta4104@...il.com, pombredanne@...b.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] staging:rtl8192u: Remove blank lines before '}'
 and after '{' characters

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:29:54AM +0100, John Whitmore wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 05:38:11PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 03:55:04PM +0100, John Whitmore wrote:
> > > Coding style change to simply remove the unrequired spaces before a closing
> > > brace or before an opening brace.
> > 
> > That would be good, but that's not what this patch does :(
> > 
> > It removes lines, not spaces, as the subject line said.  You also fix up
> > an indentation as well.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Just for clarification, before I assume something and make a mistake, I'm
> wondering about this patch set. I got auto notification to say that patches 1,
> 2, 4, & 6 had been accepted and merged with staging-next. And I got this email
> to explain why patch number 3 wasn't up to scratch.
> 
> But that leaves 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. I'm assuming that they didn't apply
> and I that I can resubmit them with a fixed up patch number 3. That seems
> logical to me so I'll work on that basis for the moment. Thought I'd better
> check, before I confuse people, with an erroneous assumption.

Yes, that is correct.

thanks,

greg k-h