linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging/ks7010: formatting updates.

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:22:10 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Matthew Giassa <matthew@...ssa.net>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/ks7010: formatting updates.

Hi Matthew,

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Matthew Giassa <matthew@...ssa.net> wrote:
>>>  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h | 80
>>> +++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>> b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>> index 84554b6..00eec18 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>
>>
>>>  #include "ks_wlan.h"
>>>  #include <linux/netdevice.h>
>>>
>>> -int ks_wlan_read_config_file(struct ks_wlan_private *priv);
>>> -int ks_wlan_setup_parameter(struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
>>> -                            unsigned int commit_flag);
>>> +int ks_wlan_read_config_file(
>>> +               struct ks_wlan_private *priv);
>>> +int ks_wlan_setup_parameter(
>>> +               struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
>>> +               unsigned int commit_flag);
>>
>>
>> Really?
>> If checkpatch complained about the above, you should file a bug report
>> against checkpatch.
>
> It seems to be a very deliberate message from checkpatch, complaining
> about the alignment of the beginning of individual function parameters
> in the prototype. The only two configurations which appeased it was the
> changes I put in above, or a combination of hard-tabs (8-wide, noexpand)
> and spaces, which I thought was ugly.

The first declaration fit nicely on a single line.
The second one indeed has a few spaces instead of TABs in the
continuation line. But that can be fixed easily, without moving the
first parameter to a continuation line.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds