linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: add blank line after struct

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]

Message-ID: <6cc1e2f7-e971-b195-acba-9b4c136aa16b@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:41:20 +0200
From:   Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: add blank line after struct


On ١٩‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:٣٦, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>
>> On ١٩/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٣:١٩, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>>
>>>> add blank line after struct for readability as
>>> The log message should start with a capital letter, so "Add".
>>
>> Okay, I will fix it.
>>
>>>> reported by checkpatch script
>>> "reported by checkpatch" or "reported by the checkpatch script".
>>> The first is more concise, and it doesn't really matter whether checkpatch
>>> is a script or something else.
>>
>> got it.
>>
>>>> " CHECK: Please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum
>>>> declarations"
>>> I guess the #define was concatenated to the end of the definition to show
>>> that it is closely related to the definition.  With the #define, it seems
>>> rather natural, but the better soltution would be to make a static inline
>>> function in both cases.  There would naturally be a blank line before a
>>> function definition as well.
>>
>> got your point, so, should i ignore this?
> Not sure what you mean by ignore.  If you rewrite the #define as a
> function, an use the natural placement for a function definition, then the
> checkpatch warning will go away as a side effect.


I mean ignore this patch and make another patch with rewrite #define as 
you suggested.


Menna

>
> julia
>
>>
>> Menna
>>
>>> julia
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 2 ++
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>> b/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>> index d4a225b76338..1de510499480 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ struct gbphy_device {
>>>>    	struct list_head list;
>>>>    	struct device dev;
>>>>    };
>>>> +
>>>>    #define to_gbphy_dev(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev)
>>>>
>>>>    static inline void *gb_gbphy_get_data(struct gbphy_device *gdev)
>>>> @@ -43,6 +44,7 @@ struct gbphy_driver {
>>>>
>>>>    	struct device_driver driver;
>>>>    };
>>>> +
>>>>    #define to_gbphy_driver(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver, driver)
>>>>
>>>>    int gb_gbphy_register_driver(struct gbphy_driver *driver,
>>>> --
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> >