linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: fbtft: Fix checkpatch warning

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: <20170327120628.GA1249@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:06:28 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Anar Adilova <anaradilovab@...il.com>
Cc:     thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: fbtft: Fix checkpatch warning

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 03:02:45PM +0600, Anar Adilova wrote:
> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
> 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable.
> 
> The EXPORT_SYMBOL statements are placed inside if blocks, after both function implementations.
>

Please always wrap your changelog text at 72 columns.

> Signed-off-by: Anar Adilova <anaradilovab@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> index b742ee7..d2e3e8d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> @@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ void fbtft_unregister_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  		par->info->bl_dev = NULL;
>  	}
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_unregister_backlight);
>  
>  static const struct backlight_ops fbtft_bl_ops = {
>  	.get_brightness	= fbtft_backlight_get_brightness,
> @@ -321,12 +322,13 @@ void fbtft_register_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par)
>  	if (!par->fbtftops.unregister_backlight)
>  		par->fbtftops.unregister_backlight = fbtft_unregister_backlight;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_register_backlight);
>  #else
>  void fbtft_register_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) { };
> -void fbtft_unregister_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) { };
> -#endif
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_register_backlight);
> +void fbtft_unregister_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) { };
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_unregister_backlight);
> +#endif

No, the original code here is "nicer" in that you don't have duplicate
declarations like your change added.

You can ignore the checkpatch warning here.

thanks,

greg k-h