linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231021130535.GA12776@ubuntu>
Date:   Sat, 21 Oct 2023 06:05:35 -0700
From:   Nandha Kumar Singaram <nandhakumar.singaram@...il.com>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Alignment should match open parenthesis

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 07:15:37PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 10/19/23 4:39 PM, Nandha Kumar Singaram wrote:
> > Adhere to linux coding style. Reported by checkpatch.pl:
> > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> 
> Sometimes checkpatch.pl warns about things that are not
> really that important.  One class of this type of issue
> is white space errors.
> 
> Yes, consistency is good, but the kernel simply doesn't
> have universally consistent conventions, and I doubt
> it ever will.  There might be times where a source file
> consistently follows a white space convention that
> differs from what checkpatch wants.  Suggesting a
> wholesale change to that file to "fix" that typically
> wouldn't be welcome.
> 
> Unfortunately without some experience it's hard to know
> which checkpatch warnings can be safely ignored.  I would
> place white space warnings at a lower priority for fixing
> than some others.  For example, this is also a pretty
> trivial warning:
>   CHECK: Macro argument 'gcam' may be better as '(gcam)' to avoid precedence
> issues
> And it is most likely not a problem in this case, but fixing
> this type of warning is probably more constructive than
> just adjusting white space.
> 
> I have no objection to your patch, and it's a fine way to
> get some experience with the patch process, but I don't
> think this particular change is necessary.
> 
> 					-Alex
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Nandha Kumar Singaram <nandhakumar.singaram@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> > index cdbb42cd413b..405c8e78aa72 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int gb_camera_operation_sync_flags(struct gb_connection *connection,
> >   }
> >   static int gb_camera_get_max_pkt_size(struct gb_camera *gcam,
> > -		struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp)
> > +				      struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp)
> >   {
> >   	unsigned int max_pkt_size = 0;
> >   	unsigned int i;
> > @@ -267,8 +267,7 @@ static int gb_camera_get_max_pkt_size(struct gb_camera *gcam,
> >    * Validate the stream configuration response verifying padding is correctly
> >    * set and the returned number of streams is supported
> >    */
> > -static const int gb_camera_configure_streams_validate_response(
> > -		struct gb_camera *gcam,
> > +static const int gb_camera_configure_streams_validate_response(struct gb_camera *gcam,
> >   		struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp,
> >   		unsigned int nstreams)
> >   {
> > @@ -378,8 +377,8 @@ struct ap_csi_config_request {
> >   #define GB_CAMERA_CSI_CLK_FREQ_MARGIN		150000000U
> >   static int gb_camera_setup_data_connection(struct gb_camera *gcam,
> > -		struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp,
> > -		struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params)
> > +					   struct gb_camera_configure_streams_response *resp,
> > +					   struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params)
> >   {
> >   	struct ap_csi_config_request csi_cfg;
> >   	struct gb_connection *conn;
> > @@ -783,8 +782,9 @@ static ssize_t gb_camera_op_capabilities(void *priv, char *data, size_t len)
> >   }
> >   static int gb_camera_op_configure_streams(void *priv, unsigned int *nstreams,
> > -		unsigned int *flags, struct gb_camera_stream *streams,
> > -		struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params)
> > +					  unsigned int *flags,
> > +					  struct gb_camera_stream *streams,
> > +					  struct gb_camera_csi_params *csi_params)
> >   {
> >   	struct gb_camera *gcam = priv;
> >   	struct gb_camera_stream_config *gb_streams;
> 

Thanks Alex for the review and feedback.

Regards,
Nandha Kumar