linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

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:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 13:11:28 +0100
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next][V2] i2c: xiic: fix indentation issue

On 27. 01. 20 13:08, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 27/01/2020 12:05, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 27. 01. 20 11:23, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>>
>>>> There is a statement that is indented one level too deeply, remove
>>>> the extraneous tab.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: fix type in commit message
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> index b17d30c9ab40..90c1c362394d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int xiic_clear_rx_fifo(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>>>>  		xiic_getreg8(i2c, XIIC_DRR_REG_OFFSET);
>>>>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>>>  			dev_err(i2c->dev, "Failed to clear rx fifo\n");
>>>> -				return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>> +			return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> As was suggested by Peter you should also add Fixes: <sha1> ("patch
>>> subject")
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a bugfix, it's just a cleanup.
> 
> I'm surprised i wasn't asked for a bug number too.

ok. Up2you.

Thanks,
Michal