linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi/bcm63xx-hspi: Fix checkpatch warnings

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:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 23:08:15 +0530
From:   Aravind Thokala <aravind.thk@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi/bcm63xx-hspi: Fix checkpatch warnings

Hello Mark,

Thank you for reviewing the patch. I've used the checkpatch tool and
fixed the warnings provided by the tool. The warnings are in the
function definitions:

1) static void bcm63xx_hsspi_set_cs(struct bcm63xx_hsspi *bs, unsigned
 cs, bool active)

2) static void bcm63xx_hsspi_set_clk(struct bcm63xx_hsspi *bs,
                                  struct spi_device *spi, int hz)
{
        unsigned profile = spi->chip_select;

3) static int bcm63xx_hsspi_do_txrx(struct spi_device *spi, struct
spi_transfer *t)
{
        struct bcm63xx_hsspi *bs = spi_master_get_devdata(spi->master);
        unsigned chip_select = spi->chip_select;

These warnings looked straightforward for me so I've fixed those and
sent the patch.

Kindly let me know if you want to record the warnings in the patch so
that I could send v2 patch as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Aravind.


On 29 June 2017 at 00:15, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:37:10PM +0530, Aravind Thokala wrote:
>> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warnings on the driver
>> file.
>
> This isn't a good changelog, what are the warnings and why are we fixing
> them?  The fact that checkpatch complains isn't meaningful in and of
> itself - it's OK to say that checkpatch helped identify issues but it's
> not perfect and we need to understand what is being changed and why.