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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 19 Mar 2023 13:52:38 +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 ١٣:٤٦, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> 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
>
Okay :D, Thanks Julia.

Menna

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