[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1425853125.2745.4.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:18:45 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: Ioana Antoche <ioana.antoche@...il.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nits: fix several coding style warnings
On Sun, 2015-03-08 at 23:14 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2015, Ioana Antoche wrote:
> > Fix checkpatch.pl warnings such as:
> > * missing blank line after declarations
> > * line over 80 characters
[]
> > @@ -298,8 +299,7 @@ static struct device *next_device(struct klist_iter *i)
> > * count in the supplied callback.
> > */
> > int bus_for_each_dev(struct bus_type *bus, struct device *start,
> > - void *data, int (*fn)(struct device *, void *))
> > -{
> > + void *data, int (*fn)(struct device *, void *)) {
>
> Really curious: is this change (and a similar one below) really fixing a
> style violation?
Nope.
The "for_each" use in a function name confuses checkpatch.
Normally, those are macros.
> > @@ -448,8 +449,7 @@ static struct device_driver *next_driver(struct klist_iter *i)
> > * so it doesn't disappear before returning to the caller.
> > */
> > int bus_for_each_drv(struct bus_type *bus, struct device_driver *start,
> > - void *data, int (*fn)(struct device_driver *, void *))
> > -{
> > + void *data, int (*fn)(struct device_driver *, void *)) {
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists