[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74bbc76260594a8a8f7993ab66cca104@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:31:26 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Jarkko Sakkinen' <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
"peterhuewe@....de" <peterhuewe@....de>,
"stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip
...
> > > + get_device(&chip->dev);
> > > + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
> > > + chip->devs.devt =
> > > + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
>
> Isn't this less than 100 chars?
Still best kept under 80 if 'reasonable'?
Really it is just split in the wrong place:
chip->devs.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt),
chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists