On 04/23/2014 04:04 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:39:06AM +0800, Michalis Pappas wrote:
>> After all patches have been applied, the only remaining issue on the
>> TODO list is to conform to the coding standards. The remaining issues
>> reported by checkpatch.pl are probably pedantic, so if agreed, that
>> task can be removed from the list too.
>
> So I did a:
> for i in $(find drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ -name \*.c) ; do ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -f $i 2>&1 ; done | tee err-list
>
Hi Dan, thanks for looking at this. From the above snippet I realize that I wasn't aware of the strict flag, so significantly less errors were produced.
The issues I was referring to as pedantic are:
WARNING: unchecked sscanf return value
#296: FILE: gdm_wimax.c:296:
+ sscanf(e->dev->name, "wm%d", &idx);
does this really need to be checked?
ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis
#34: FILE: usb_ids.h:34:
+#define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid) \
+ {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)}, \
+ {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)}
these macros are only used for brevity in a subsequent array declaration, so it seems that the parenthesis are not really needed.
Moreover, due to recent commits on checkpatch.pl, a few more issues are now reported, even when not using the strict flag. In any case, I can re-run using strict and submit an additional set of patches for the remaining issues.
Regards,
Michalis
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
