linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vme_user: fix check alignment should match open parenthesis

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: <ZMKkgItqf8r8BcRB@alolivei-thinkpadt480s.gru.csb>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 14:08:16 -0300
From:   Alexon Oliveira <alexondunkan@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     martyn@...chs.me.uk, manohar.vanga@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vme_user: fix check alignment should match open
 parenthesis

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 05:05:03PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 11:47:23AM -0300, Alexon Oliveira wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:03:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 12:55:11AM -0300, Alexon Oliveira wrote:
> > > > Adhere to Linux kernel coding style.
> > > > 
> > > > Reported by checkpatch:
> > > > 
> > > > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > > > 
> > > > #132: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:132
> > > > #135: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:135
> > > > #139: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:139
> > > > #142: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:142
> > > > #144: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:144
> > > > #146: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:146
> > > > #148: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:148
> > > > #152: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:152
> > > > #163: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:163
> > > > #173: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:173
> > > > #175: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h:175
> > > 
> > > We don't need all of these lines.
> > 
> > Hi Greg, I hope you're good and these messages find you well.
> > 
> > ACK. I thought it would be good to explain what I changed.
> > 
> > > 
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Alexon Oliveira <alexondunkan@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Please don't indent your signed-off-by line, that should be to the left.
> > > 
> > 
> > ACK. I didn't indent. This was the output of "git format-patch" I copied and pasted. Next time I'll remove the indentation manually.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h
> > > > index 11df0a5e7f7b..a0d7a8db239d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h
> > > > @@ -128,28 +128,21 @@ struct vme_bridge {
> > > >  	struct mutex irq_mtx;
> > > > 
> > > >  	/* Slave Functions */
> > > > -	int (*slave_get)(struct vme_slave_resource *, int *,
> > > > -		unsigned long long *, unsigned long long *, dma_addr_t *,
> > > > -		u32 *, u32 *);
> > > > -	int (*slave_set)(struct vme_slave_resource *, int, unsigned long long,
> > > > -		unsigned long long, dma_addr_t, u32, u32);
> > > > +	int (*slave_get)(struct vme_slave_resource *, int *, unsigned long long *,
> > > > +			 unsigned long long *, dma_addr_t *, u32 *, u32 *);
> > > > +	int (*slave_set)(struct vme_slave_resource *, int, unsigned long long, unsigned long long, dma_addr_t, u32, u32);
> > > 
> > > Did you run your patch through checkpatch.pl after making this change?
> > 
> > Yes, I did it. No more checks about "Alignment should match open parenthesis".
> > 
> > > I think you just added more warnings...
> > 
> > I only focused to solve the checks related to the message above. Nevertheless, there are still other warnings and checks reported by checkpath.pl non-related to this patch (i.e. not caused by this patch) that need to be fixed, but I intend to help to fix them afterwards in a different patch, so I don't send patches with too many changes at once.  
> 
> You resolved one warning by replacing it with a different one, that's
> not good :(

Well, honestly, I couldn't spot any new issue caused by this patch. At least it was not reported by the checkpatch.pl. The ones that are still showing up were already there. But, to move on, if you think it's more productive, I can fix all warnings and checks reported by the checkpatch.pl and send them over in only one patch. Is it that feasible?

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Thank you again.

Alexon Oliveira.