linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition argument without identifier name issue

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: <20161013145752.GB20947@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:57:52 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mikhail Golubev <golubev.mikhail@...il.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, forest@...ttletooquiet.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition
 argument without identifier name issue

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:23:45PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:06:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote:
> > > Function definitions arguments should also have an identifier name as reported by checkpatch.pl.
> > 
> > Please wrap your changelog comments at 72 columns.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Golubev <golubev.mikhail@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h | 20 ++++++++++----------
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
> > > index 7cc1387..fe1c25c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h
> > > @@ -86,15 +86,15 @@ struct vnt_phy_field {
> > >  unsigned int vnt_get_frame_time(u8 preamble_type, u8 pkt_type,
> > >  				unsigned int frame_length, u16 tx_rate);
> > >  
> > > -void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *, u32 frame_length,
> > > -		       u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *);
> > > -
> > > -void vnt_set_short_slot_time(struct vnt_private *);
> > > -void vnt_set_vga_gain_offset(struct vnt_private *, u8);
> > > -void vnt_set_antenna_mode(struct vnt_private *, u8);
> > > -int vnt_vt3184_init(struct vnt_private *);
> > > -void vnt_set_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *);
> > > -void vnt_exit_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *);
> > > -void vnt_update_pre_ed_threshold(struct vnt_private *, int scanning);
> > > +void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *priv, u32 frame_length,
> > > +		       u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *phy);
> > > +
> > 
> > Really?  Since when is this a coding style requirement?
> > 
> 
> This requirement is really new. It was proposed by Joe Perches at 26 Sep 2016:
> [PATCH] checkpatch: Add warning for unnamed function definition.
> 
> Should this type of warnings be fixed here?

Ugh, Joe, why did you add this option?

What is it going to help out with?

thanks,

greg k-h