On 04/06/11 20:24, Belisko Marek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:14 PM, <nijs.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Michael Nijs <nijs.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Fixed code styling issue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Nijs <nijs.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> index fd1c844..c872fdd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int sca3000_rip_hw_rb(struct iio_ring_buffer *r,
>>
>> /* Convert byte order and shift to default resolution */
>> if (st->bpse == 11) {
>> - samples = (s16 *)(*data+1);
>> + samples = (s16*)(*data+1);
> Strange. My output(latest 2.6.39-rc2):
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
> ERROR: "(foo*)" should be "(foo *)"
> #94: FILE: staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c:94:
> + samples = (s16*)(*data+1);
>
> So for me it seems it was correct and you post patch with change where
> checkpatch will bark. Or am I missing something?
>> for (i = 0; i < (num_read/2); i++) {
>> samples[i] = be16_to_cpup(
>> (__be16 *)&(samples[i]));
There are some much nastier issues with that section of code. If nothing else
I dread to think what be16_to_cpup does with unaligned pointers. There's a
rewrite of this code in my local tree anyway so either way the issue will probably
go away shortly!
Thanks anyway.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
