linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/14] bfa: Brocade BFA FC SCSI driver (bfa1)

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]

Message-Id: <1253814934.20648.262.camel@desktop>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:55:34 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Jing Huang <huangj@...cade.COM>
Cc:	"James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com" 
	<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Krishna Gudipati <kgudipat@...cade.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ramkumar Vadivelu <rvadivel@...cade.COM>,
	Vinodh Ravindran <vravindr@...cade.COM>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/14] bfa: Brocade BFA FC SCSI driver (bfa1)

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 10:38 -0700, Jing Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 17:49 -0700, Jing Huang wrote:
> > > +
> > > +       return (*(union bfi_addr_u *) &addr);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Have you run checkpatch on this code? It produces many errors due to
> > your "return" usage for one.. The usual style of return is not to use
> > parentheses since it's really not a function ..
> > 
> > The line I quoted above gives the following error,
> > 
> > ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
> > #266: FILE: drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_cb_ioim_macros.h:132:
> > +       return (*(union bfi_addr_u *) &addr);
> > 
> > First of all I'd consider making your code consistent with respect to
> > the return statements .. I noticed that you sometimes use the
> > parentheses sometimes not .. Since it's more with Linux style I'd just
> > remove all the extra parentheses..
> > 
> > Checkpatch produces many other errors in your code .. If you haven't
> > already evaluated those errors, I'd do go through each patch and review
> > the errors (and the warnings) that it produces since checkpatch can give
> > you a fairly mechanical view into how well your code matches the Linux
> > coding style. The less the output from checkpatch the better ..
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> 
> Hi Daniel, 
> 
> I did run checkpatch.pl and it didn't report any ERROR or WARNING. Do you use any specific flags?

No nothing special .. I run it in the following way,

./scripts/checkpatch.pl this-is-the-test.patch

or

cat this-is-the-test.patch | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -

how did you run it? Usually it will report something like the following
if it finds nothing,

total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, XXX lines checked

Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.



Daniel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/