[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140506.171028.1170337163654829281.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 17:10:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: _govind@....com
Cc: nhorman@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
cooldavid@...ldavid.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jme: Fix DMA unmap warning
From: Govindarajulu Varadarajan <_govind@....com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 02:34:55 +0530 (IST)
>
>
> On Tue, 6 May 2014, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
>> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 16:50:46 -0400
>>
>>>>> + ctxbi = txbi + ((startidx + j + 2) & (mask));
>>>>> + pci_unmap_page(jme->pdev,
>>>>> + ctxbi->mapping,
>>>>> + ctxbi->len,
>>>>> + PCI_DMA_TODEVICE);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ctxbi->mapping = 0;
>>>>> + ctxbi->len = 0;
>>>>
>>>> Alignment, a tab from 'for'
>>> Not sure what you mean by this, I don't see any alignment errors
>>> above, or in my
>>> tree. Checkpatch also claims its clean.
>>
>> Indeed it is indented correctly, the "+" at the beginning of the line
>> in
>> the patch makes it look like it's not, but it is.
>>
>
> Hmm. This is how it looked when I applied the patch.
> http://i.imgur.com/ZdjqJ3d.png
>
> ctxbi->mapping = 0;
> ctxbi->len = 0;
>
> is aligned to '(' of pci_unmap_page. But these two statements are not
> arg of
> the function. Shouldn't it be aligned along pci_unmap_page and not '('
It should be aligned to the first column after the openning "(" of the
function call.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists