linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vme_user: fix missing blank line after declarations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aW0zaMndlZeghsqM@stanley.mountain>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 22:24:24 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: shinsj4653@...il.com
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nadzya.info@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vme_user: fix missing blank line after
 declarations

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 11:19:54AM -0500, shinsj4653@...il.com wrote:
> From: shinsj4653 <shinsj4653@...il.com>
> 
> This patch fixes a coding style issue reported by checkpatch.pl:
> "WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations"
> 
> A blank line is added to separate the variable declaration from
> the code logic, improving readability.
> 
> Signed-off-by: shinsj4653 <shinsj4653@...il.com>

Use a real name, please.

> ---
>  drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c
> index 731fbba17dfd..55c00e1d162d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme_fake.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ struct fake_driver {
>  	unsigned long long lm_base;
>  	u32 lm_aspace;
>  	u32 lm_cycle;
> +

This is a bug in checkpatch.pl.  Try to fix checkpatch instead or
otherwise just ignore it when checkpatch is wrong.  The rules is that
when there is a declaration block at the start of a function then there
is a blank line between the declarations and the code.  Here, we're not
inside a function so something went wrong.

regards,
dan carpenter