linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ACPI/device_sysfs: Clean up 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: <CAJZ5v0iAar-AJ8zsf6B0awm-xWT0xr3PQji5zoZeQYt+=+_W0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:18:43 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Betty Dall <betty.dall@....com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ACPI/device_sysfs: Clean up checkpatch errors

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Betty Dall <betty.dall@....com> wrote:
> Cleaning up five existing checkpatch errors in device_sysfs.c since the
> file is being changed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Betty Dall <betty.dall@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c b/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c
> index e556a3e..5aaebec 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static ssize_t acpi_object_path(acpi_handle handle, char *buf)
>         if (result)
>                 return result;
>
> -       result = sprintf(buf, "%s\n", (char*)path.pointer);
> +       result = sprintf(buf, "%s\n", (char *)path.pointer);

OK

>         kfree(path.pointer);
>         return result;
>  }
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static const struct sysfs_ops acpi_data_node_sysfs_ops = {
>  static void acpi_data_node_release(struct kobject *kobj)
>  {
>         struct acpi_data_node *dn = to_data_node(kobj);
> +

Maybe.

>         complete(&dn->kobj_done);
>  }
>
> @@ -106,7 +107,8 @@ static void acpi_expose_nondev_subnodes(struct kobject *kobj,
>                 ret = kobject_init_and_add(&dn->kobj, &acpi_data_node_ktype,
>                                            kobj, "%s", dn->name);
>                 if (ret)
> -                       acpi_handle_err(dn->handle, "Failed to expose (%d)\n", ret);
> +                       acpi_handle_err(dn->handle,
> +                               "Failed to expose (%d)\n", ret);

No.  checkpatch is wrong here.

>                 else
>                         acpi_expose_nondev_subnodes(&dn->kobj, &dn->data);
>         }
> @@ -333,7 +335,9 @@ int acpi_device_modalias(struct device *dev, char *buf, int size)
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_device_modalias);
>
>  static ssize_t
> -acpi_device_modalias_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) {
> +acpi_device_modalias_show(struct device *dev,
> +                       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)

The brace should go to the new line, but it's better if the header
takes one line only.

> +{
>         return __acpi_device_modalias(to_acpi_device(dev), buf, 1024);
>  }
>  static DEVICE_ATTR(modalias, 0444, acpi_device_modalias_show, NULL);
> @@ -397,7 +401,9 @@ acpi_eject_store(struct device *d, struct device_attribute *attr,
>  static DEVICE_ATTR(eject, 0200, NULL, acpi_eject_store);
>
>  static ssize_t
> -acpi_device_hid_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) {
> +acpi_device_hid_show(struct device *dev,
> +       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)

Ditto.

> +{
>         struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev);
>
>         return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", acpi_device_hid(acpi_dev));
> @@ -568,10 +574,10 @@ int acpi_device_setup_files(struct acpi_device *dev)
>                         goto end;
>         }
>
> -        /*
> -         * If device has _EJ0, 'eject' file is created that is used to trigger
> -         * hot-removal function from userland.
> -         */
> +       /*
> +        * If device has _EJ0, 'eject' file is created that is used to trigger
> +        * hot-removal function from userland.
> +        */

What's the problem with this comment?

>         if (acpi_has_method(dev->handle, "_EJ0")) {
>                 result = device_create_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_eject);
>                 if (result)
> --