linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] fix cpufreq/cpufreq.c some coding style issues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150824042458.GB5375@linux>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:54:58 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Muhammad Falak R Wani <falakreyaz@...il.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fix cpufreq/cpufreq.c some coding style issues

On 23-08-15, 21:09, Muhammad Falak R Wani wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 	This patch fixes issues in coding style, of a missing blank line after
> declarations.
> 
> Best,
> mfrw

This is as ugly as it could be. Please go through
Documentation/SubmittingPatches and other related stuff to see you to
send patches.

> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Falak R Wani <falakreyaz@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 8ae655c..5aea659 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -718,6 +718,7 @@ static ssize_t show_bios_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>  {
>  	unsigned int limit;
>  	int ret;
> +
>  	if (cpufreq_driver->bios_limit) {
>  		ret = cpufreq_driver->bios_limit(policy->cpu, &limit);
>  		if (!ret)
> @@ -815,6 +816,7 @@ unlock:
>  static void cpufreq_sysfs_release(struct kobject *kobj)
>  {
>  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = to_policy(kobj);
> +
>  	pr_debug("last reference is dropped\n");
>  	complete(&policy->kobj_unregister);
>  }
> @@ -2129,6 +2131,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_unregister_governor);
>  int cpufreq_get_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
> +
>  	if (!policy)
>  		return -EINVAL;

And then these changes are all trivial and not at all important. We
don't want a patch for that even if checkpatch complains.

-- 
viresh
--
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/