linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank line after declarations

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:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:39:34 +0100
From:   John Oldman <john.oldman@...ehill.co.uk>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank
 line after declarations

(this time sent as plain text)

I was not so happy about this one, even though I went and committed it.

Without the blank line checkpatch reports:

WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#160: FILE: drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c:160:
+ struct tasklet_struct task;
+ volatile unsigned long chan_issued;

So I dumly inserted a blank line to silence checkpatch.

In hindsight maybe a false positive, blank lines in a struct!

Someone may have been there before as there is a previous blank line
in the struct mtk_hsdam_engine :o)

Cheers
John


On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 18:07, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 05:13:19PM +0100, John Oldman wrote:
> > Fixed coding style issue
>
> No you didn't :)
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Oldman <john.oldman@...ehill.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c
> > index 14592ed9ce98..dd35d0bce6ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c
> > @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@ struct mtk_hsdam_engine {
> >       struct device_dma_parameters dma_parms;
> >       void __iomem *base;
> >       struct tasklet_struct task;
> > +
> >       volatile unsigned long chan_issued;
> >
> >       struct mtk_hsdma_chan chan[1];
>
> This file seems to be the "does the submitter look at the patch they are
> sending" litmus test.
>
> Does that really do what you think it does?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h