linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers:pci Fix all whitespace 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1451236894.1098.5.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:21:34 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Bogicevic Sasa <brutallesale@...il.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com
Cc:	Richard.Zhu@...escale.com, l.stach@...gutronix.de,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:pci Fix all whitespace issues

On Sun, 2015-12-27 at 08:40 -0800, Bogicevic Sasa wrote:
> This patch fixes all whitespace issues( missing or needed whitespace) in
> all files in drivers/pci folder. Code is compiled with allyesconfig
> before and after code changes and objects are recorded and checked with
> objdiff and they are not changed after this commit.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c
[]
> @@ -25,9 +25,9 @@ DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(pci_lock);
>  #define PCI_word_BAD (pos & 1)
>  #define PCI_dword_BAD (pos & 3)
>  
> -#define PCI_OP_READ(size,type,len) \
> +#define PCI_OP_READ(size, type, len) \
>  int pci_bus_read_config_##size \
> -	(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int pos, type *value)	\
> +	(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int pos, type * value)	\
>  {									\
>  	int res;							\
>  	unsigned long flags;						\
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ int pci_bus_read_config_##size \
>  	return res;							\
>  }

When the first entry I look at is improper, I wonder
about the rest.

Was this done with checkpatch --types=spacing --fix ?

If so, because checkpatch is brainless, you need to
visually verify each change.

This "type" use is a macro argument indicating
what actual c90 type is being used in a function.

The original code is nominally correct, but checkpatch
doesn't know that "type" is not a variable.
--
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/