linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: solve codestyle WARNINGs and CHECKs

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]

Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:05:11 -0200
From:   Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de,
        pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-usp@...glegroups.com,
        Anderson Reis <andersonreisrosa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: solve codestyle WARNINGs and
 CHECKs

Thanks! I'll send those changes in my next patchset.

On 02/02/2019 08:00, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:29:11 -0200
> LSO <lucasseikioshiro@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the review!
>>
>> On 29/01/2019 20:48, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 16:36 -0200, Lucas Oshiro wrote:
>>>> Solve most of the checkpatch.pl WARNINGs and CHECKs on lmp9100.c. They
>>>> are the following:
>>>>
>>>> lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'state != channel'
>>>> lmp91000.c:116: CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'channel == LMP91000_REG_MODECN_TEMP'
>>>> lmp91000.c:214: CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement
>>>> lmp91000.c:216: CHECK: Unbalanced braces around else statement
>>>> lmp91000.c:258: WARNING: line over 80 characters
>>>> lmp91000.c:279: CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
>>>
>>> Some will say this is too many things to do at once.
>>> I think it's mostly fine, but there are a few nits
>>> that also could use fixing.
> 
> Always a case of personal judgement.
> I agree that this one 'just' falls on the side of not too many things for one
> patch.  If there had been a few more items then it would have been too much.
> 
> I would also have been happy with it broken out.  If I had been spinning
> it myself, I would have done it as 3 patches in pairs from your list
> above with the last one grouping the white space changes.
> 
> The test inversion below is also stretching beyond simple style
> so probably should be broken out.
> 
>>>    
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c
>>> []
>>>> @@ -211,9 +211,9 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data)
>>>>    
>>>>    	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val);
>>>>    	if (ret) {
>>>> -		if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor"))
>>>> +		if (of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) {
>>>>    			val = 0;
>>>> -		else {
>>>> +		} else {
>>>>    			dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined");
>>>>    			return ret;
>>>>    		}
>>>
>>> This could use inverting the test
>>>
>>> 	if (ret) {
>>> 		if (!of_property_read_bool(...)) {
>>> 			dev_err(dev, "no ti,ti-gain-ohm defined\n");
>>> 			return ret;
>>> 		}
>>> 		val = 0;
>>> 	}
>>>   
>> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that in the next version.
>>
>>> Also the dev_err is missing a '\n' termination
>>
>> My aim in this patch was only solve style problems, but I
>> can put that missing '\n' too. Do you think it could be done
>> in the same commit or it's a better idea do it in another
>> commit and send both as a patchset?
> 
> Separate commit given as you say it's not style and this one has
> enough different things in it already!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>>>
>>>    
>