linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging:rtl8192e: fix comments style issue in r8180_93cx6.c This is a patch to the r8180_93cx6.c file that fixes up the comments styling issues found by the checkpatch.pl tool Signed-off-by: Tim Schofield <tim@...erpafrica.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]

Message-ID: <20100218183151.4b7dbf72@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:31:51 +0100
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	gregkh@...e.de
Cc:	Tim Schofield <tim.schofield1960@...glemail.com>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tim@...erpafrica.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging:rtl8192e: fix comments style issue in
 r8180_93cx6.c This is a patch to the r8180_93cx6.c file that fixes up the
 comments styling issues found by the checkpatch.pl tool Signed-off-by: Tim
 Schofield <tim@...erpafrica.com>

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:05:47 -0800
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 04:35:16PM +0000, tim@...erpafrica.com wrote:
> > From: Tim Schofield <tim.schofield1960@...glemail.com>
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c |   22 ++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c
> > index 262ed5f..60fba80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c
> > @@ -23,12 +23,14 @@
> >  static void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> >  {
> >  	if (bit)
> > +		/* enable EPROM */
> >  		write_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> >  			       (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | \
> > -			       read_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD)); //enable EPROM
> > +			       read_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> >  	else
> > +		/* disable EPROM */
> >  		write_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD)\
> > -			       &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); //disable EPROM
> > +			       &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT));
> 
> This does not do what you think it does (hint, you need {} if you want
> to have more than one line in an if statement...)
> 
> Can you always verify that your coding style changes do not actually
> break the code?  A simple comparison of the .ko file before and after
> should be sufficient.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

hm... no.. seems to be correct... the comment get's ignored. But I
agree that {} would be nicer to the eye...
--
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/