Oh.. sorry.
Ok, I will seperate this patch as you said.
Thanks.
Daeseok Youn.
2014-02-26 20:31 GMT+09:00, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:11:40PM +0900, DaeSeok Youn wrote:
>> Actually , I saw some code like this file which is seperate line
>> between return value and function name.
>> So I didn't make one line of them.
>>
>> Ok, I will make another patch after merge this one.
>
> No, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Those type of function
> declarations are allowed in the kernel so the original code is fine.
> What I am saying is this patch is doing two thing but it should be doing
> only one thing.
>
>> @@ -53,8 +53,8 @@ lnd_t the_o2iblnd = {
>>
>> kib_data_t kiblnd_data;
>>
>> -__u32
>> -kiblnd_cksum (void *ptr, int nob)
>> +static __u32
>> +kiblnd_cksum(void *ptr, int nob)
>> {
>> char *c = ptr;
>> __u32 sum = 0;
>
> Changing the white space here is OK because it is a minor related
> white space change.
>
>> @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ kiblnd_create_peer(lnet_ni_t *ni, kib_peer_t **peerp,
>> lnet_nid_t nid)
>> }
>>
>> void
>> -kiblnd_destroy_peer (kib_peer_t *peer)
>> +kiblnd_destroy_peer(kib_peer_t *peer)
>> {
>
> This is a random unrelated white space change, so do it in a separate
> patch.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
