On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:15:11PM +0000, Daniel Lockyer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:56:39AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 05:53:55PM +0000, Daniel Lockyer wrote:
> > > Fixed a coding style issue.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lockyer <thisisdaniellockyer@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
> > > index 8f20910..3bb8c1b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
> > > @@ -1166,6 +1166,7 @@ typedef struct hfa384x_usbctlx {
> > > CTLX_STATE state; /* Tracks running state */
> > >
> > > struct completion done;
> > > +
> > > volatile int reapable; /* Food for the reaper task */
> > >
> > > ctlx_cmdcb_t cmdcb; /* Async command callback */
> >
> > What coding style issue does this fix? It looks wrong to me.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> I used checkpatch.pl on the file and it returns "WARNING: Missing a
> blank line after declarations".
>
> I can't see anything specific in the CodingStyle file. Is this an
> error on checkpatch.pl's behalf?
Yes, older versions of checkpatch couldn't understand 'volatile', newer
versions should properly tell you that you need to delete the line after
reapable, not add one before.
Use your brain when reading checkpatch results, it's not always the
smartest thing, it's a perl script :)
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
