linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: power

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: <DBBXCAEMM5ZO.GTKVMMR2XDJ7@linaro.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:38:31 +0100
From: Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@...il.com>
To: "Akhil Varkey" <akhilvarkey@...root.org>,
 <greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org>, <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rmfrfs@...il.com>, <johan@...nel.org>,
 <elder@...nel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: <~lkcamp/patches@...ts.sr.ht>, <koike@...lia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: power_supply fix alignment

Hey Akhil,
Thanks for your patch.

All looks good with the exception of a small nit...

On Mon Jul 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM WEST, Akhil Varkey wrote:

> Fix checkpatch check "CHECK:Alignment should match open parenthesis"
>
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Varkey <akhilvarkey@...root.org>
> ---
>
> Hello, This is my first patch, I appreciate any feedbacks. Thanks!!

Welcome, and continue...

> ---
>  drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> index 2ef46822f676..a484c0ca058d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/power_supply.c
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static struct gb_power_supply_prop *get_psy_prop(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>  }
>  
>  static int is_psy_prop_writeable(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> -				     enum power_supply_property psp)
> +				 enum power_supply_property psp)
>  {
>  	struct gb_power_supply_prop *prop;
>  
> @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_description_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>  	if (!gbpsy->model_name)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	gbpsy->serial_number = kstrndup(resp.serial_number, PROP_MAX,
> -				       GFP_KERNEL);
> +					GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!gbpsy->serial_number)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static int gb_power_supply_prop_descriptors_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy)
>  	}
>  
>  	gbpsy->props = kcalloc(gbpsy->properties_count, sizeof(*gbpsy->props),
> -			      GFP_KERNEL);
> +			       GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!gbpsy->props) {
>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto out_put_operation;
> @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static int __gb_power_supply_property_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
>  }
>  
>  static int __gb_power_supply_property_strval_get(struct gb_power_supply *gbpsy,
> -						enum power_supply_property psp,
> -						union power_supply_propval *val)
> +						 enum power_supply_property psp,
> +						 union power_supply_propval *val)

Here you fix the alignment, but the last line goes over column 81, even
though 80 is not really one hard requirement anymore, all code
(strings is ok to go over to be easier to grep for messages) is on that
register.

So, to be coherent, if you could please send a V2 without this specific change
would be great, Or even better, if you could get rid of all the _ and __
prefixes in functions names that would be great, and will give more
space for function paramethers.
Your call.

Also, gives you also the chance to practice to send a new
version ;).

Cheers,
    Rui

>  {
>  	switch (psp) {
>  	case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_MODEL_NAME:
> @@ -943,8 +943,8 @@ static int gb_power_supplies_setup(struct gb_power_supplies *supplies)
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	supplies->supply = kcalloc(supplies->supplies_count,
> -				     sizeof(struct gb_power_supply),
> -				     GFP_KERNEL);
> +				   sizeof(struct gb_power_supply),
> +				   GFP_KERNEL);
>  
>  	if (!supplies->supply) {
>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> -- 
> 2.47.2