linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192u: fix checkpatch error/warning in r819xU

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:01:42 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	sanjeev sharma <sanjeevsharmaengg@...il.com>
Cc:	gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, rmfrfs@...il.com,
	"peter.senna" <peter.senna@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192u: fix checkpatch error/warning in
 r819xU_phy.c

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:18:40PM +0530, sanjeev sharma wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:34:18AM +0530, sanjeev sharma wrote:
> > > From: sanjeevs1 <sanjeev_sharma@...tor.com>
> >         ^^^^^^^^^
> > No.
> >
> > >
> > > This is a patch to the r819xU_phy.c file that fixes up all the
> > Error/Warning found by the checkpatch.pl tool
> >
> > Split it into one thing per patch.
> >
> 
> you mean to say Error and Warning should be fixed in separate patches ?

patch 1: remove useless returns
patch 2: too long lines
patch 3: fix sleep ranges
etc.

> > >       /* TODO: we should not delay such a long time. Ask for help from
> > SD3 */
> > > -     usleep_range(1000, 1000);
> > > +     usleep_range(1000, 2000);
> >
> > No.
> >
> > usleep_range(1000, 1001);
> Above could be best fit to resolve the checkpatch error because
> usleep_range() shouldn't use min ==max args; what you would suggest ?

Just leave it alone until someone who knows the answer and has the
hardware can change it.

> > Adapter->HalFunc.LedControlHandler(Adapter, LED_CTL_NO_LINK);
> > > +                                     Adapter->HalFunc.LedControlHandler
> > > +                                     (Adapter, LED_CTL_NO_LINK);
> >
> > The original was more readable.
> >
> Don't we need to focus on Warning rather then readability ?

No.  Readability first.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/