linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] staging: vt6655: Macro with braces issue change to inline function

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: <Y9/zml6iPvoBBVXx@combine-ThinkPad-S1-Yoga>
Date:   Sun, 5 Feb 2023 19:21:14 +0100
From:   Guru Mehar Rachaputi <gurumeharrachaputi@...il.com>
To:     Nam Cao <namcaov@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: vt6655: Macro with braces issue change to
 inline function

On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 04:34:29PM +0100, Nam Cao wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:16:07PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:08:02PM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote:
> > > > This patch is to fix checkpatch warning: "Macro argument 'iobase' may be better
> > > > as '(iobase)' to avoid precedence issues"
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > 	- Whitespace error from checkpatch fixed
> > > > 
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > 	- Macros with one statement that is to call 'iowrite8' function changed
> > > > 	to inline function as reviewed by gregkh@...uxfoundation.org.
> > > > 	In relation to this, names of the callers of macro are also modified
> > > > 	to call this function.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guru Mehar Rachaputi <gurumeharrachaputi@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Try to take this patch and apply it to a tree, and see that everything
> > > below the --- line is thrown away, including your signed-off-by: line :(
> > > 
> > Sorry, should not a patch contain signed-off-by: line?
> > I did not understand.
> 
> Patches must include signed-off-by. However your patch has it below the
> --- line, and git will throw it away. You can try "git am <your patch>"
> and see for yourself.
> 
> Best regards,
> Nam
I made my current working branch track origin/staging-testing and
modified the commit message and sent the patch again. I hope there won't
be any issue.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Guru