linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] i2c: designware: Cleaning and comment style fixes.

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: <c6048839-9d16-8f71-809b-82b9ab35390b@synopsys.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:57:42 +0100
From:   Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>,
        <wsa@...-dreams.de>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com>, <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] i2c: designware: Cleaning and comment style
 fixes.

On 09-Jun-17 6:12, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-06-08 19:36, Luis Oliveira wrote:
>> complicated to review. The work here won't bring any additional work to
>> backported fixes because is just style and reordering.
> 
> I challenge that. If there is an old bug that existed before this patch
> that is fixed in the future after this patch has been applied, it might
> very well be hard_er_ to backport that fix to a point before this patch
> has been applied. So, what do you mean?
> 
Yes, that's true. But it will not be that hard since it's mostly style
(comments, format, return variables, misspelled words).
For my humble point of view the code looks better after this patch is applied.
So if It's more easy to read it should be more easy to fix also if needed.

>> @@ -984,12 +984,12 @@ int i2c_dw_probe(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	i2c_dw_disable_int(dev);
>> -	r = devm_request_irq(dev->dev, dev->irq, i2c_dw_isr, irq_flags,
>> +	ret = devm_request_irq(dev->dev, dev->irq, i2c_dw_isr, irq_flags,
>>  			     dev_name(dev->dev), dev);
> 
> Two extra spaces needed to align with the opening bracket.
> 
Thank you, you are right.

> Cheers,
> peda
> 

Cheers,
Luis