linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: Silicom: Bypasslib: Fixed a couple of checkpatch.pl warnings

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: <20140523225424.GT15585@mwanda>
Date:	Sat, 24 May 2014 01:54:24 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Chaitanya Hazarey <c@...io>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, christoph.kohl@...nline.de,
	michael.hoefler@...dium.uni-erlangen.de, rupert@...ch.net,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: Silicom: Bypasslib: Fixed a couple of
 checkpatch.pl warnings

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:39:43PM -0700, Chaitanya Hazarey wrote:
> Added a blank line after declarations to fix the following warnings issued by checkpatch.pl:
> 
> drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c:138: WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c:189: WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Hazarey <c@...io>

Still doesn't apply, I'm afraid.

> ---
>  drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c |    2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c b/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c
> index a58251f..8e714a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c
> @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ static int doit(int cmd, int if_index, int *data)
>  static int is_dev_sd(int if_index)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> +
>  	SET_BPLIB_INT_FN(is_bypass, int, if_index, ret);
>  	return ret >= 0 ? 1 : 0;
>  }
> @@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ static int is_bypass_dev(int if_index)
>  static int is_bypass(int if_index)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> +
>  	SET_BPLIB_INT_FN(is_bypass, int, if_index, ret);
>  	if (ret < 0)

There was supposed to be a blank line between the call to
SET_BPLIB_INT_FN() and the return check and it got deleted for some
reason.

regards,
dan carpetner


--
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/