linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192u: fix rmmod warn when wlan0 is renamed

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

Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:47:02 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Tong Zhang <ztong0001@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>,
        Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192u: fix rmmod warn when wlan0 is renamed

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 12:01:57AM -0700, Tong Zhang wrote:
> -static int __maybe_unused proc_get_stats_rx(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> -{
> -	struct net_device *dev = m->private;
> -	struct r8192_priv *priv = (struct r8192_priv *)ieee80211_priv(dev);
> -
> -	seq_printf(m,
> -		   "RX packets: %lu\n"
> -		   "RX urb status error: %lu\n"
> -		   "RX invalid urb error: %lu\n",
> -		   priv->stats.rxoktotal,
> -		   priv->stats.rxstaterr,
> -		   priv->stats.rxurberr);
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}

> +static int rtl8192_usb_stats_rx_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *dev = m->private;
> +	struct r8192_priv *priv = (struct r8192_priv *)ieee80211_priv(dev);
> +
> +	seq_printf(m,
> +			"RX packets: %lu\n"
> +			"RX urb status error: %lu\n"
> +			"RX invalid urb error: %lu\n",
> +			priv->stats.rxoktotal,
> +			priv->stats.rxstaterr,
> +			priv->stats.rxurberr);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

When you're moving function around, then try to avoid changing the white
space at all.  It just makes it more complicated to review.  But
especially in this case, the white space was correct-ish in the original
and now it is bad.

regards,
dan carpenter