[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e1dfdde-d9f3-9e16-82a6-7b5497981bdd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:43:26 +0200
From: Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>
To: Sevinj Aghayeva <sevinj.aghayeva@...il.com>,
Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: simplify control flow
On 4/3/22 18:29, Sevinj Aghayeva wrote:
> Ah, I see. You run it on an email file that contains the patch. I
> could reproduce what you saw when I ran checkpatch without any options
> on an email file. But my usual workflow is to modify a file, e.g.
> rtw_mlme.c and then run "checkpatch.pl -f rtw_mlme.c", in which case I
> cannot see the "Alignment should match" error. So it looks like if you
> do not specify -f then checkpatch.pl enables --strict option.
>
Hi Sevinj,
I'm also not a checkpatch expert, but on my system this works without
--strict too. I applied your patch to my local tree and get:
/scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c
[snip]
CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
#1638: FILE: drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c:1638:
+ if ((p->PMKIDList[i].bUsed) &&
+ (!memcmp(p->PMKIDList[i].Bssid, bssid,
ETH_ALEN)))
[snip]
You can also run checkpatch on the patch files (without -f).
Then it's easier to see if you introduced new issues.
regards,
Michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists