On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:16:13PM +0530, Aniruddha Shastri wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:01:04AM -0600, Aniruddha Shastri wrote: >> > > Fix checkpatch warnings by shortening lines and reorganizing code where needed.. >> > > Re-phrase the assert messages in ni_mio_common.c. This was done to meet the character limit for the message. >> > >> > And yet this line is over the character length :) >> Aniruddha: Thanks for pointing this out, I'll amend the commit message. :) > > Why put your name in the response? Of course I know it's you who is > writing this :) I thought it might be clearer for others to read our exchange, but that only works if everyone does the same. Otherwise, it's just clutter. I'm used to seeing a name and timestamp next to comments in other code review systems (like TFS), but this doesn't appear to be the Linux way :) > >> > > range_table_list = kmalloc_array(32, >> > > - sizeof(struct comedi_lrange *), >> > > + range_size, >> > >> > Not worth changing. >> >> Aniruddha: The original checkpatch.pl warning instructed to use >> const struct comedi_lrange instead of struct. Adding the 'const' put this >> line over the limit, so that's why I pulled it out into a local variable. > > Checkpatch is a "hint", don't always follow it, it can cause some code > to look really bad. It's not a hard-rule. That's a relief :). I've sent updated patches that only clean-up where needed. > > thanks, > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
