[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab0fd80-22c-d982-2f4-6fa5f43f858@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:49:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Khadija <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
cc: outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: axis-fifo: alignment should match opening
parenthesis in axis-fifo.c
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Khadija wrote:
> Hey Julia! Thank you for the feedback. I will make the following changes and
> resend the patch:
> 1. Correct the patch description that is right under the subject line (make
> it precise and imperative) and make sure that it does not have more than 70
> characters per line.
> 2. Adjust all the arguments of wait_event_interruptible_timeout so that they
> are lined up. All of them should begin right under ( .
The problem here is that the ( is really far to the right. My opinion is
that the position of the second argument (ie the first one that is on a
line of its own) is ok in this case. So you can leave that one where it
is and line up the other one.
julia
> Kindly let me know if I have understood it
> right.[EIu7f6EdNusD0UITKM3h?rid=EIu7f6EdNusD0UITKM3h]
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:08 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Khadija Kamran wrote:
>
> > In file drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c the alignment
> did not match the opening parenthesis. So, a few tabs were added
> to match the alignment to exactly where the parenthesis started.
>
> Hello Khadija,
>
> Thanks for plunging in and being the first participant!
>
> However, there are a number of issues with the proposed patch.
>
> 1. The log message should be at most around 70 characters
> wide. You have
> one long line.
>
> 2. The log message should be written in the imperative.
> Instead of "a
> few tabs were added", ay "add a few tabs".
>
> 3. I'm not sure that it is worth creating a very long line to
> respect the
> rule about (. On the other hand, the way the code is written at
> the
> moment seems to be very misleading, because the third argument
> to
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout is written as though it is the
> second
> argument to ioread32. So you can adjust the argument list of
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout so that at least all of the
> arguments
> that are not on the same line as the function call are lined up.
>
> julia
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> b/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> > index dfd2b357f484..6e959224add0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> > @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ static ssize_t axis_fifo_read(struct file
> *f, char __user *buf,
> > */
> > mutex_lock(&fifo->read_lock);
> > ret =
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout(fifo->read_queue,
> > - ioread32(fifo->base_addr +
> XLLF_RDFO_OFFSET),
> > +
> ioread32(fifo->base_addr + XLLF_RDFO_OFFSET),
> > (read_timeout >= 0) ?
> > msecs_to_jiffies(read_timeout)
> :
> > MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists