linux-kernel - Re: PATCH for style warnings in drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170317003106.GA28811@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:31:06 +0900
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@...il.com>
Cc:     christian.gromm@...rochip.com, andrey.shvetsov@....de,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH for style warnings in drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:38:39PM -0700, Chandra Annamaneni wrote:
> 
> Enclosed is a patch to the file video.c. It only fixes style warning flagged
> by checkpatch.pl.
> 
> Please let me know if anything else needs to be done.
> 
> Thanks.
> Chandra
> 
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c b/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
> index e074841..59e861e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/most/aim-v4l2/video.c
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static int aim_vdev_open(struct file *filp)
>  	struct most_video_dev *mdev = video_drvdata(filp);
>  	struct aim_fh *fh;
> 
> -	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_vdev_open()\n");
> +	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
> 
>  	switch (vdev->vfl_type) {
>  	case VFL_TYPE_GRABBER:
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int aim_vdev_close(struct file *filp)
>  	struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
>  	struct mbo *mbo, *tmp;
> 
> -	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_vdev_close()\n");
> +	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
> 
>  	/*
>  	 * We need to put MBOs back before we call most_stop_channel()
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int vidioc_g_std(struct file *file, void *priv, v4l2_std_id *norm)
>  	struct aim_fh *fh = priv;
>  	struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
> 
> -	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "vidioc_g_std()\n");
> +	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
> 
>  	*norm = V4L2_STD_UNKNOWN;
>  	return 0;
> @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *file, void *priv, unsigned int index)
>  	struct aim_fh *fh = priv;
>  	struct most_video_dev *mdev = fh->mdev;
> 
> -	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "vidioc_s_input(%d)\n", index);
> +	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s(%d)\n", __func__, index);
> 
>  	if (index >= V4L2_AIM_MAX_INPUT)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ static int aim_register_videodev(struct most_video_dev *mdev)
>  {
>  	int ret;
> 
> -	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_register_videodev()\n");
> +	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
> 
>  	init_waitqueue_head(&mdev->wait_data);
> 
> @@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ static int aim_register_videodev(struct most_video_dev *mdev)
> 
>  static void aim_unregister_videodev(struct most_video_dev *mdev)
>  {
> -	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "aim_unregister_videodev()\n");
> +	v4l2_info(&mdev->v4l2_dev, "%s()\n", __func__);
> 
>  	video_unregister_device(mdev->vdev);
>  }


Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- Your patch does not have a Signed-off-by: line.  Please read the
  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after
  adding that line.  Note, the line needs to be in the body of the
  email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the
  email signature.

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot