On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 11:27 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:17:03PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_softmac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_softmac.c
> > @@ -1690,7 +1690,8 @@ ieee80211_rx_auth_rq(struct ieee80211_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > //IEEE80211DMESG("Rx probe");
> > ieee->softmac_stats.rx_auth_rq++;
> >
> > - if ((status = auth_rq_parse(skb, dest))!= -1){
> > + status = auth_rq_parse(skb, dest);
> > + if (status!= -1) {
>
> And again. Did you do this with some tool and not by hand?
[]
> Did you not run your patch through checkpatch after creating it and
> before sending it to me?
>From the original 0/13 introduction:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/25/6
Used scripts/cvt_kernel.style.pl:
--convert-hoist_assigns_from_if
and verified visually.
checkpatch errors ignored
The script itself is:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/24/447
>From an earlier Greg KH email:
> Careful that you don't add new coding style issues to a staging driver
Avoiding checkpatch errors and avoiding new coding style issues
are frequently conflicting goals.
I try not to add "new" issues. and I generally
leave the old ones alone.
I don't use checkpatch as a guide for what to fix
or as an inhibitor on what style patch to send.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
