[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231013211917.GC25352@Negi>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:19:18 -0700
From: Soumya Negi <soumya.negi97@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Kim <jonathankim@...semi.com>,
Dean ahn <deanahn@...semi.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: gdm724x: Fix coding style checkpatch warnings
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:53:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:14:58PM -0700, Soumya Negi wrote:
> > @@ -271,8 +272,8 @@ int register_lte_tty_driver(void)
> > int ret;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < TTY_MAX_COUNT; i++) {
> > - tty_driver = tty_alloc_driver(GDM_TTY_MINOR,
> > - TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW | TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV);
> > + tty_driver = tty_alloc_driver(GDM_TTY_MINOR, TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW |
> > + TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV);
>
> Don't do this. The code was better before. The parameter
> "TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW | TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV" is one thing and
> splitting it up like that makes the code less readable. And I bet they
> had to indent it like that to get under the 80 character limit.
>
> This is an example of checkpatch giving bad advice.
Hi Dan,
Will keep this in mind for other similar checkpatch warnings.
Thanks,
Soumya
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists