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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:51:51 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
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, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:31:51PM +0100, Florian Mickler wrote:
> 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...

wow, you are right, I just tested it out, learn something new every day.

But we should add braces...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/