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]

Date:   Sun, 19 Mar 2023 12:46:41 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
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 Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:

>
> 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.

Yes :)  That's fine ("drop" would be better than "ignore").

julia

>
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>