linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: most: fix line ending with '('

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: <6af8c3d2-de18-4149-a85b-8fb8235f6001@kili.mountain>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 07:48:11 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
Cc:     outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        Parthiban Veerasooran <parthiban.veerasooran@...rochip.com>,
        Christian Gromm <christian.gromm@...rochip.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: most: fix line ending with '('

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:06:07PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 06:09:50PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 08:01:52PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > > Splitting function header to multiple lines because of 80 characters per
> > > line limit, results in ending the function call line with '('.
> > > This leads to CHECK reported by checkpatch.pl
> > > 
> > > Move the function parameters right after the '(' in the function call
> > > line. Align the rest of the parameters to the opening parenthesis.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Changes in v2:
> > >  - Changed the description
> > > 
> > 
> > No one replied to the v1 of this patch so it's not clear which of the
> > patches should be ignored.
> >
> 
> Hey Dan!
> 
> I created a patch revision without any feedback. My bad. I thought the
> description in the previous patch was misleading, so I wanted to change
> it.

Yeah.  But you have to reply to the other email.  Otherwise how will we
know there was a response to it?

> 
> > Also you have a couple patches with the same subject and that's against
> > the rules.
> >
> 
> I am sorry about that. Kindly guide me here. 
> Both patches are for same driver i.e. staging/most, but for different
> files. Would it be fine to add file names in the subject to
> differentiate them?
> 

I trust you.  Figure out a way.  ;)

regards,
dan carpenter