| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YI5CSvPnz1mL9+Az@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 08:10:18 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thais Camacho <thaiscamachoo@...il.com>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: greybus: tools: loopback_test: fixed coding
style issues
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 04:30:42PM -0300, Thais Camacho wrote:
> Fixed warnings found by checkpatch.pl script
>
> Signed-off-by: Thais Camacho <thaiscamachoo@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/greybus/tools/loopback_test.c | 18 +++---------------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/tools/loopback_test.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/tools/loopback_test.c
> index 867bf289df2e..553883b2bfa3 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/tools/loopback_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/tools/loopback_test.c
> @@ -239,7 +239,6 @@ static void show_loopback_devices(struct loopback_test *t)
>
> for (i = 0; i < t->device_count; i++)
> printf("device[%d] = %s\n", i, t->devices[i].name);
> -
> }
>
> int open_sysfs(const char *sys_pfx, const char *node, int flags)
> @@ -274,7 +273,6 @@ float read_sysfs_float_fd(int fd, const char *sys_pfx, const char *node)
> char buf[SYSFS_MAX_INT];
>
> if (read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf)) < 0) {
> -
> fprintf(stderr, "unable to read from %s%s %s\n", sys_pfx, node,
> strerror(errno));
> close(fd);
> @@ -367,7 +365,6 @@ static int get_results(struct loopback_test *t)
> r->apbridge_unipro_latency_max - r->apbridge_unipro_latency_min;
> r->gbphy_firmware_latency_jitter =
> r->gbphy_firmware_latency_max - r->gbphy_firmware_latency_min;
> -
> }
>
> /*calculate the aggregate results of all enabled devices */
> @@ -407,7 +404,6 @@ static int get_results(struct loopback_test *t)
> r->apbridge_unipro_latency_max - r->apbridge_unipro_latency_min;
> r->gbphy_firmware_latency_jitter =
> r->gbphy_firmware_latency_max - r->gbphy_firmware_latency_min;
> -
> }
>
> return 0;
> @@ -536,7 +532,6 @@ static int log_results(struct loopback_test *t)
> fprintf(stderr, "unable to open %s for appendation\n", file_name);
> abort();
> }
> -
> }
> for (i = 0; i < t->device_count; i++) {
> if (!device_enabled(t, i))
> @@ -550,10 +545,8 @@ static int log_results(struct loopback_test *t)
> if (ret == -1)
> fprintf(stderr, "unable to write %d bytes to csv.\n", len);
> }
> -
> }
>
> -
> if (t->aggregate_output) {
> len = format_output(t, &t->aggregate_results, "aggregate",
> data, sizeof(data), &tm);
> @@ -675,11 +668,13 @@ static int open_poll_files(struct loopback_test *t)
> static int close_poll_files(struct loopback_test *t)
> {
> int i;
> +
> for (i = 0; i < t->poll_count; i++)
> close(t->fds[i].fd);
>
> return 0;
> }
> +
> static int is_complete(struct loopback_test *t)
> {
> int iteration_count;
> @@ -740,7 +735,6 @@ static int wait_for_complete(struct loopback_test *t)
> ts = &t->poll_timeout;
>
> while (1) {
> -
> ret = ppoll(t->fds, t->poll_count, ts, &mask_old);
> if (ret <= 0) {
> stop_tests(t);
> @@ -780,7 +774,6 @@ static void prepare_devices(struct loopback_test *t)
> if (t->stop_all || device_enabled(t, i))
> write_sysfs_val(t->devices[i].sysfs_entry, "type", 0);
>
> -
> for (i = 0; i < t->device_count; i++) {
> if (!device_enabled(t, i))
> continue;
> @@ -823,13 +816,12 @@ static int start(struct loopback_test *t)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -
> void loopback_run(struct loopback_test *t)
> {
> int i;
> int ret;
>
> - for (i = 0; dict[i].name != NULL; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; dict[i].name; i++) {
> if (strstr(dict[i].name, t->test_name))
> t->test_id = dict[i].type;
> }
> @@ -852,7 +844,6 @@ void loopback_run(struct loopback_test *t)
> if (ret)
> goto err;
>
> -
> get_results(t);
>
> log_results(t);
> @@ -861,7 +852,6 @@ void loopback_run(struct loopback_test *t)
>
> err:
> printf("Error running test\n");
> - return;
> }
>
> static int sanity_check(struct loopback_test *t)
> @@ -881,10 +871,8 @@ static int sanity_check(struct loopback_test *t)
> fprintf(stderr, "Bad device mask %x\n", (1 << i));
> return -1;
> }
> -
> }
>
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:
- Your patch does not have a Signed-off-by: line. Please read the
kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches and resend it after
adding that line. Note, the line needs to be in the body of the
email, before the patch, not at the bottom of the patch or in the
email signature.
- Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the
patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
merge issues that larger patches can cause.
- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the
section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
properly describe the change.
- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read
the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
look like.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
Powered by blists - more mailing lists