On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 19:26 +0400, Alexey Charkov wrote: > 2014/1/27 Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 15:51 +0400, Alexey Charkov wrote: [...] > >> @@ -1094,20 +1094,22 @@ static int alloc_ring(struct net_device* dev) > >> void *ring; > >> dma_addr_t ring_dma; > >> > >> - ring = pci_alloc_consistent(rp->pdev, > >> + ring = dma_alloc_coherent(&rp->pdev->dev, > >> RX_RING_SIZE * sizeof(struct rx_desc) + > >> TX_RING_SIZE * sizeof(struct tx_desc), > >> - &ring_dma); > >> + &ring_dma, > >> + GFP_ATOMIC); > > [...] > > > > Indentation is messed up here (and in several other function calls > > you're changing). You should align the function arguments so each line > > begins in the column after the opening parenthesis. > > Ben, thanks for pointing out. I actually just tried to follow the > style of surrounding code, but happy to adjust if that's the preferred > option. From what I can see, these lines should still fit in below 80 > cols even with increased indents... > > Should we then also adjust other function calls within the driver with > similar indentation (if any), that are currently not touched by this > patch series? There is no need to do that at the same time, but it would be a nice bit of cleanup. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
