linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] staging: greybus: camera: 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: <20231028202220.GA2432@ubuntu>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 13:22:20 -0700
From:   Nandha Kumar Singaram <nandhakumar.singaram@...il.com>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kumaran.4353@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] staging: greybus: camera: Alignment should match
 open parenthesis

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:18:04PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 10/22/23 7:15 AM, Nandha Kumar Singaram wrote:
> > Adhere to linux coding style. Reported by checkpatch.pl:
> > CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> 
> Generally, the result of this patch in isolation looks OK.
> But when you compare it with your next patch, what you're
> doing here becomes inconsistent with the indentation used
> for the function arguments there.
> 
> There is value in consistency as advocated by checkpatch,
> but there's also value in consistency within a single
> source file.
> 
> I'd stay away from these white space changes.
> 
> 					-Alex
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Nandha Kumar Singaram <nandhakumar.singaram@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c | 10 +++++-----
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> > index ae49e37a87e9..6516e7efaab9 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;
> > @@ -378,8 +378,8 @@ 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 +783,8 @@ 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.

yeah, I understood about the indentation issue when comparing 
to other patch but fixing the indentation there results in 
another checkpatch check(CHECK: line length of 113 exceeds 100
columns) so didn't added any change over there. 

Regards,
Nandha Kumar