linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: sm750fb: fixes add blank line after function/struct/union/enum declarations

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, 7 Mar 2017 20:39:35 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@...il.com>
Cc:     sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: sm750fb: fixes add blank line after
 function/struct/union/enum declarations

On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:54:48PM +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
> This patch fixes the warnings reported by checkpatch.pl
> for please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum
> declarations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.h | 1 +
>  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.h    | 2 ++
>  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_power.h   | 1 +
>  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750_cursor.c   | 3 +++
>  4 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.h b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.h
> index e2a3f84ca4c5..8bf22e4f0d8b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_display.h
> @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ typedef enum _disp_output_t {
>  	do_CRT_PRI = CRT_2_PRI | PRI_TP_ON | DPMS_ON | DAC_ON,
>  	do_CRT_SEC = CRT_2_SEC | SEC_TP_ON | DPMS_ON | DAC_ON,
>  }
> +
>  disp_output_t;


Nah...  This is a typedef and this change makes it even worse.  It
should be on the same line as the }.

} disp_output_t;

But actually this typedef is not allowed.

regards,
dan carpenter