linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers: isdn: act2000: capi.c: fix checkpatch errors

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502071902060.2050@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Sat, 7 Feb 2015 19:02:40 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
cc:	Bas Peters <baspeters93@...il.com>, isdn@...ux-pingi.de,
	julia.lawall@...6.fr, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] drivers: isdn: act2000: capi.c: fix checkpatch
 errors

On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> On 02/07/2015 08:06 PM, Bas Peters wrote:
> 
> > This patch fixes the following checkpatch errors:
> > 	1. trailing statement
> > 	1. assignment of variable in if condition
> > 	1. incorrectly placed brace after function definition
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Bas Peters <baspeters93@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/isdn/act2000/capi.c | 9 ++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/isdn/act2000/capi.c b/drivers/isdn/act2000/capi.c
> > index 3f66ca2..5d677e6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/isdn/act2000/capi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/isdn/act2000/capi.c
> > @@ -113,7 +113,8 @@ actcapi_chkhdr(act2000_card *card, actcapi_msghdr *hdr)
> >   			m->hdr.cmd.cmd = c;			\
> >   			m->hdr.cmd.subcmd = s;			\
> >   			m->hdr.msgnum = actcapi_nextsmsg(card); \
> > -		} else m = NULL;				\
> > +		} else

It looks like a \ was lost on this line.  It should have caused a compiler 
error.

julia

> > +			m = NULL;				\
> 
>    Documentation/CodingStyle has an extra rule for such case: *else* branch
> should also have {} since *if* branch has {}.
> 
> [...]
> 
> WNR, Sergei
> 
> 
--
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/