On 04/29/2016 02:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
Checkpatch wants a blank line after declarations.
>> 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.
Ok - that was just an 80 char warning.
>> 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.
Ok - I was trying to clean up the 80 character warning, but I see your
point.
>> +{
>> 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.
OK.
>> +{
>> 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?
They were spaces - not a tab.
>
>> 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
