On 5/12/11, J. Ali Harlow <ali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It seems like the vmk80xx driver differs from CodingStyle quite a bit,
> so I guess the first step is to try and bridge that gap...
>
Not a very good/specific patch description.
> >From c820e58802fd54fa728933111cfdfe99e155be71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: J. Ali Harlow <ali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:17:19 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix vmk80xx comedi driver to conform to CodingStyle
> Fix vmk80xx comedi driver to conform to CodingStyle
>
Neither is this.
> Signed-off-by: J. Ali Harlow <ali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/vmk80xx.c | 439
> +++++++++---------------------
> 1 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 315 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/vmk80xx.c
> b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/vmk80xx.c
> index 6479c38..9d81c19 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/vmk80xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/vmk80xx.c
> @@ -249,19 +249,14 @@ static void vmk80xx_tx_callback(struct urb *urb)
> {
> struct vmk80xx_usb *dev = urb->context;
> int stat = urb->status;
> -
> dbgvm("vmk80xx: %s\n", __func__);
The original code was correct. There should be a blank line between
declarations and code. I don't think it's in CodingStyle but a blank
before a return statement is also pretty standard. Really it the
original code looks OK to me as far as blank lines go. Why did
you delete all of them?
You changed a macro to an inline function. Put that in a separate
patch from the whitespace changes.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
