On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:14:40PM -0700, Sungju Huh wrote:
> --- a/drivers/staging/csr/sme_blocking.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/csr/sme_blocking.c
> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ int sme_mgt_scan_full(unifi_priv_t *priv,
> int num_channels,
> unsigned char *channel_list)
> {
> - CsrWifiMacAddress bcastAddress = {{0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF }};
> + CsrWifiMacAddress bcastAddress = { {0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF } };
Does checkpatch.pl actually warn about this? Because the original
looks fine to me and checkpatch should stop warning about this.
> @@ -1221,13 +1221,13 @@ int sme_mgt_connection_stats_get(unifi_priv_t *priv, CsrWifiSmeConnectionStats *
>
> int sme_mgt_packet_filter_set(unifi_priv_t *priv)
> {
> - CsrWifiIp4Address ipAddress = {{0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF }};
> + CsrWifiIp4Address ipAddress = { {0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF } };
> if (priv->smepriv == NULL) {
> unifi_error(priv, "sme_mgt_packet_filter_set: invalid smepriv\n");
> return -EIO;
> }
> if (priv->packet_filters.arp_filter) {
> - ipAddress.a[0] = (priv->sta_ip_address ) & 0xFF;
> + ipAddress.a[0] = (priv->sta_ip_address) & 0xFF;
> ipAddress.a[1] = (priv->sta_ip_address >> 8) & 0xFF;
> ipAddress.a[2] = (priv->sta_ip_address >> 16) & 0xFF;
> ipAddress.a[3] = (priv->sta_ip_address >> 24) & 0xFF;
No. The original was more clear than the new version.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
