linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: fixed some coding style issues in the gpio files

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:38:57 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh8@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh@...tonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: fixed some coding style issues in the gpio files

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:01 AM Abanoub Sameh <abanoubsameh8@...il.com> wrote:

Thanks for the patch!

> This patch adds the word int to unsigned in more than 600 locations,
> (and changed one long int into int)
> I recompiled the files except some that had no make rules,
> and I can make another patch only for the files that did compile.
>
> If you want, I can split it into smaller ones. I don't think that this patch
> causes any problem, except maybe causing diff and patch to fail because
> of the number of lines changed, so maybe if you have any patches that
> need to be applied just apply them before you do that one.
>
> if the word int was intentionally left out, a sed command can be
> run, now that the code is more uniform, to change every instance of
> unsigned int to unsigned, and if you want I can supply a patch for that.
>
> I can also add more patches to fix the rest of the code style errors,
> that are stand alone or apply after this one.

'that is stand' or ?

For drivers I'm maintaining, please split on per driver basis (I will
show below which ones I have in mind).
For the rest you have to include relevant maintainers / designated reviewers.

...

>  drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c | 10 +++---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c         | 26 +++++++-------
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-intel-mid.c   | 22 ++++++------
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-ml-ioh.c      | 10 +++---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-msic.c        | 22 ++++++------
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c         | 10 +++---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-sch.c         | 22 ++++++------

Above, please one patch per driver.

>  drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c     | 12 +++----
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-dln2.c        | 28 +++++++--------
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c       |  6 ++--

This I prefer to see the same way, but I'm not a maintainer, so let
them speak up.

>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-devres.c   | 16 ++++-----
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-legacy.c   |  6 ++--
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c          | 26 +++++++-------

These perhaps should go in a separate patch with gpiolib: prefix.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko