linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging:fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c: fixed 80 character line limit coding

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: <CANQNnfH6=7HCb6A-mEdusHX_JBo6mcii75R0mTKjpgRaiJ0RoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 8 Oct 2016 00:25:15 +0530
From:   Nadim Almas <nadim.902@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging:fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c: fixed 80 character line limit coding

why its seems worst to you i am just removing  "80 character line
limit coding style"
for the last 3 months I am trying to submit my first patch but patch
is not accepted by you by giving reason i can't able to understand
please help me

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:43:02AM -0700, Nadim Almas wrote:
>> style issue
>>
>> Fixed coding style issue
>
> This does not seem like valid sentances that mean much to me.  Do they
> to you?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadim Almas <nadim.902@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c
>> index 774b0ff..bc0c48f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c
>> @@ -30,20 +30,27 @@ static int default_init_sequence[] = {
>>
>>       -1, 0xfc, 0x5a, 0x5a,
>>
>> -     -1, 0xfa, 0x02, 0x1f, 0x00, 0x10, 0x22, 0x30, 0x38, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3d, 0x02, 0x01,
>> +     -1, 0xfa, 0x02, 0x1f, 0x00, 0x10, 0x22, 0x30, 0x38, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A,
>> +                                             0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3d, 0x02, 0x01,
>
> This looks worse to me now, remember, checkpatch.pl is a "hint", not a
> hard-and-fast-rule.  Use it wisely.
>
> greg k-h