> Il giorno 07 mar 2017, alle ore 01:22, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > On 03/04/2017 08:01 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> Some patch generates WARNINGS with checkpatch.pl, but these WARNINGS >> seem to be either unavoidable for the involved pieces of code (which >> the patch just extends), or false positives. > > The code in this series looks reasonably clean from a code style point > of view, Great, thanks! > but please address all checkpatch warnings that can be > addressed easily. A few examples of such checkpatch warnings: > > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" > The offending line is: *(__PTR) = (u64)__data * NSEC_PER_USEC; so this seems a false positive. > WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR' are not preferred. > Consider using octal permissions '0644'. > I have used symbolic permissions because I find them much easier to remember and decode than numeric constants, and because it is done so in cfq-iosched.c, deadline-iosched.c and now mq-deadline.c. But, since you share this checkpatch complain, I will switch to constants. Thanks, Paolo > Thanks, > > Bart.
