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: <ZNEKJH3mEoOwV6eF@alolivei-thinkpadt480s.gru.csb>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:13:40 -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 Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 08:14:33AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 06:20:50PM -0300, Alexon Oliveira wrote:
> > Fixed all CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> > as reported by checkpatch to adhere to the Linux kernel
> > coding-style guidelines.
> 
> This does not describe the changes you actually made in this patch :(
> 
Hi Greg,

Thank you for your feedback. Don't get me wrong, please, I'm just trying
to understand it now, but honestly I don't know what is wrong with
it this time. I described exactly what I did in the code: ran the
checkpatch, which identified a lot of "CHECK: Alignment should match
open parenthesis" messages, fixed them all according to the coding-style
guidelines and comitted it.

This is the same thing I did previously for the file
drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_bridge.h in the commit
7d5ce25fb4c3cc91d16e27163dc141de0eba213b, but now is the file
drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c and commit
a1f0b0a8ba9a496504c2e3d4b37cee388e78f0ea. Different files,
different commits, similar fixes for the same warnings,
and same description.

The only thing I found strange is because instead of starting a new
email thread it ended up in the same email thread as the previous
patch. Would that be the problem?

If not, would you mind, please, to explain to me what would be the most
appropriate way you'd like me to write this changelog?

I really appreciate your patience and help.

Thank you.

Regards.