linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KPC2000: kpc2000_spi.c: Fix style issues (line length)

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, 10 Oct 2019 10:41:40 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gneukum1@...il.com,
        fabian.krueger@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        simon@...anor.nu, dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KPC2000: kpc2000_spi.c: Fix style issues (line length)

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 08:08:57PM -0700, Chandra Annamaneni wrote:
> Resoved: "WARNING: line over 80 characters" from checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chandra Annamaneni <chandra627@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> index 3be33c4..ef78b6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000_spi.c
> @@ -30,19 +30,19 @@
>  #include "kpc.h"
>  
>  static struct mtd_partition p2kr0_spi0_parts[] = {
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_0",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = 0,                },
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_1",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_2",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_3",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> -	{ .name = "CS0_EXTRA",	.size = MTDPART_SIZ_FULL,	.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_0",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = 0,},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_1",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_2",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_3",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "CS0_EXTRA", .size = MTDPART_SIZ_FULL, .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
>  };
>  
>  static struct mtd_partition p2kr0_spi1_parts[] = {
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_4",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = 0,                },
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_5",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_6",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> -	{ .name = "SLOT_7",	.size = 7798784,		.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> -	{ .name = "CS1_EXTRA",	.size = MTDPART_SIZ_FULL,	.offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_4",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = 0,},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_5",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_6",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "SLOT_7",  .size = 7798784,  .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
> +	{ .name = "CS1_EXTRA",  .size = MTDPART_SIZ_FULL, .offset = MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK},
>  };
>  
>  static struct flash_platform_data p2kr0_spi0_pdata = {
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
  applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
  receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
  to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot