linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: gpio: add virtio-gpio guest driver

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]

Message-ID: <0dde3c67e0e895b8ce70de910a285fd8@walle.cc>
Date:   Fri, 04 Dec 2020 10:06:10 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>
Cc:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: gpio: add virtio-gpio guest driver

Am 2020-12-04 09:28, schrieb Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult:
> On 03.12.20 23:35, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Am 2020-12-03 20:00, schrieb Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult:
>>> On 02.12.20 15:15, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>> +               bufwalk = name_buffer;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +               while (idx < priv->num_gpios &&
>>>>> +                      bufwalk < (name_buffer+cf.names_size)) {
>>>>> +                       gpio_names[idx] = (strlen(bufwalk) ? 
>>>>> bufwalk
>>>>> : NULL);
>>>>> +                       bufwalk += strlen(bufwalk)+1;
>>>>> +                       idx++;
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Something's wrong with indentation here.
>>> 
>>> i dont think so: the "bufwalk ..." line belongs to the while 
>>> expression
>>> and is right under the "idx", as it should be. I didn't want to break 
>>> up
>>> at the "<" operator. shall i do this instead ?
>> 
>> Or don't break the lines at all. Both lines don't add up to more than
>> 100 chars,
>> right?
> 
> IIRC checkpatch complains at 80 chars. Has that been changed ?

yes,
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bdc48fa11e46f867ea4d75fa59ee87a7f48be144

-michael