On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Betty Dall <betty.dall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cleaning up five existing checkpatch errors in device_sysfs.c since the
> file is being changed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Betty Dall <betty.dall@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c b/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c
> index e556a3e..5aaebec 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/device_sysfs.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static ssize_t acpi_object_path(acpi_handle handle, char *buf)
> if (result)
> return result;
>
> - result = sprintf(buf, "%s\n", (char*)path.pointer);
> + result = sprintf(buf, "%s\n", (char *)path.pointer);
OK
> kfree(path.pointer);
> return result;
> }
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static const struct sysfs_ops acpi_data_node_sysfs_ops = {
> static void acpi_data_node_release(struct kobject *kobj)
> {
> struct acpi_data_node *dn = to_data_node(kobj);
> +
Maybe.
> complete(&dn->kobj_done);
> }
>
> @@ -106,7 +107,8 @@ static void acpi_expose_nondev_subnodes(struct kobject *kobj,
> ret = kobject_init_and_add(&dn->kobj, &acpi_data_node_ktype,
> kobj, "%s", dn->name);
> if (ret)
> - acpi_handle_err(dn->handle, "Failed to expose (%d)\n", ret);
> + acpi_handle_err(dn->handle,
> + "Failed to expose (%d)\n", ret);
No. checkpatch is wrong here.
> else
> acpi_expose_nondev_subnodes(&dn->kobj, &dn->data);
> }
> @@ -333,7 +335,9 @@ int acpi_device_modalias(struct device *dev, char *buf, int size)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_device_modalias);
>
> static ssize_t
> -acpi_device_modalias_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) {
> +acpi_device_modalias_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
The brace should go to the new line, but it's better if the header
takes one line only.
> +{
> return __acpi_device_modalias(to_acpi_device(dev), buf, 1024);
> }
> static DEVICE_ATTR(modalias, 0444, acpi_device_modalias_show, NULL);
> @@ -397,7 +401,9 @@ acpi_eject_store(struct device *d, struct device_attribute *attr,
> static DEVICE_ATTR(eject, 0200, NULL, acpi_eject_store);
>
> static ssize_t
> -acpi_device_hid_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) {
> +acpi_device_hid_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
Ditto.
> +{
> struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev);
>
> return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", acpi_device_hid(acpi_dev));
> @@ -568,10 +574,10 @@ int acpi_device_setup_files(struct acpi_device *dev)
> goto end;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * If device has _EJ0, 'eject' file is created that is used to trigger
> - * hot-removal function from userland.
> - */
> + /*
> + * If device has _EJ0, 'eject' file is created that is used to trigger
> + * hot-removal function from userland.
> + */
What's the problem with this comment?
> if (acpi_has_method(dev->handle, "_EJ0")) {
> result = device_create_file(&dev->dev, &dev_attr_eject);
> if (result)
> --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
