On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 09:39:14AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (please keep the cc's)
>
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 00:46, Paul Lemmermann
> <thepaulodoom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:41:19PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 18:48, Paul Lemmermann
> > > <thepaulodoom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fixed all styling warnings from the checkpatch.pl script.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Lemmermann <thepaulodoom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Did you test this code after 'fixing' it?
> > >
> > No, I did not. Now that I scrutinized it a bit more, I realized the
> > kernel coding conventions. Sorry about that, this is my first patch.
>
> In that case, welcome!
>
> This is not about coding conventions. This is about correctness.
>
> For instance,
>
> > > >
> > > > -#define f_nround(bo, bi, k) do {\
> > > > +#define f_nround(bo, bi, k) while (0) {\
> > > > f_rn(bo, bi, 0, k); \
> > > > f_rn(bo, bi, 1, k); \
> > > > f_rn(bo, bi, 2, k); \
> > > > f_rn(bo, bi, 3, k); \
> > > > k += 4; \
> > > > -} while (0)
> > > > +}
> > > >
>
> Why are you making this change, and why do you think it produces the
> same result?
>
> > Can you remove everything in the patch past the section with line
> > 1144, or do I have to resubit the patch?
> >
>
> checkpatch.pl is a useful tool for finding style issues, but please
> use it with care. And changing decades old code just to fix issues
> reported by checkpatch.pl is really just pointless churn.
>
> So let's just drop this patch altogether, shall we? If you're
> interested in helping out, please have a look at the staging/ tree -
> there is a lot of code there that needs cleaning up.
>
Yes, we can drop the patch. Thank you so much for your help and support.
Looking forward to contributing more to the Linux kernel.
Thanks,
Paul
