linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in spi-mt7621.c

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:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:27:32 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Armando Miraglia <arma2ff0@...il.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     neil@...wn.name, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, sankalpnegi2310@...il.com,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, sr@...x.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: mediatek: Attempt to address style issues in
 spi-mt7621.c

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:13:15PM +0100, Armando Miraglia wrote:
> My answers are in-line below. BTW bare with me as this is my attempt to get my
> feet wet in how to contribute to the linux kernel for my own pleasure and
> interest :)
> 

No problem at all.

> Is there an explicit intent to deprecate Lindent in favor of checkpatch.pl
> --fix? If one would like to contribute to fixing the tooling for linting which
> of the two would be the right target for such an effort?
> 

I've added Jean to the CC list because he worked on Lindent a few
years ago.  I really think we should just delete Lindent.  I haven't
used the checkpatch.pl --fix option but Joe Perches has good style.

> > >  static inline struct mt7621_spi *spidev_to_mt7621_spi(struct spi_device *spi)
> > > @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ static int mt7621_spi_setup(struct spi_device *spi)
> > >  	struct mt7621_spi *rs = spidev_to_mt7621_spi(spi);
> > >  
> > >  	if ((spi->max_speed_hz == 0) ||
> > > -		(spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
> > > +	    (spi->max_speed_hz > (rs->sys_freq / 2)))
> > 
> > Yeah.  Lindent is correct here.
> 
> Funny enough, this is something I adjusted manually :)
> 

:)  Good.

> I have a process question here: to post a change for the only accepted change I
> have in this patch should I send out a new patch?
> 

Yeah.  If you want.  Google for how to send a v2 patch.

regards,
dan carpenter