On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:57:48AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 06:40:13PM +0200, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > Small fix to driver. If these patches are welcomed, more could come in the
> > future.
> >
> > Regards
>
> > >From d8369cba0552c5ea5f4eadc750434e39785e042a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 18:16:53 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] [staging/silicom] Fixing missing blank line after
> > declarations
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> They would be welcome if they were in a format I could apply them in :)
>
> See Documentation/SubmittingPatches for the details on how to do this
> properly.
I think this one is good.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
> > index 7f3d884..8fb527b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
> > @@ -7450,6 +7450,7 @@ static int bypass_proc_remove_dev_sd(struct bpctl_dev *pbp_device_block)
> > {
> >
> > struct bypass_pfs_sd *current_pfs = &pbp_device_block->bypass_pfs_set;
> > +
>
> Why not also delete the empty line above this statement?
Hehe, I just wanted to fix "one coding style problem". But this new patch also
fixes the first blank line.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--- drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c.orig 2014-05-05 18:58:49.654207305 +0200
+++ drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c 2014-05-05 18:59:10.394206591 +0200
@@ -7448,8 +7448,8 @@ static int bypass_proc_create_dev_sd(str
static int bypass_proc_remove_dev_sd(struct bpctl_dev *pbp_device_block)
{
-
struct bypass_pfs_sd *current_pfs = &pbp_device_block->bypass_pfs_set;
+
remove_proc_subtree(current_pfs->dir_name, bp_procfs_dir);
current_pfs->bypass_entry = NULL;
return 0;
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
