On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 02:35:19PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 22:22 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Am 28.03.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Joe Perches:
> > > On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:40 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Shirish Gajera <gshirishfree@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
> []
> > >> Instead of blindly adding newlines to silence checkpatch.pl, what
> > >> about reworking the code?
> > >> printf("%s\n", ..) cries for a puts().
> > >
> > > There is no synth_puts
> >
> > So what?
> > Fix it! :-)
>
> Not sure that'd make the code better... ;-p
>
> > the whole code is horrible and lines other 80 chars are the *least*
> > problem.
>
> Dunno about how horrible it is, my guess is it works.
>
> > Submitting a patch just for the sake of silencing checkpatch.pl is a waste of time.
> > After applying this patch the driver 0 better than before.
>
> Agree with that.
>
> And truly, checkpatch is only a guide.
>
> Making the code better instead of merely style conforming
> should be the primary goal of patches.
This is my first patch.
Actually on the website it's return that
"Pick a warning, and try to fix it. For your first patch, only pick one
warning. In the future you can group multiple changes into one patch,
but only if you follow the PatchPhilosophy of breaking each patch into
logical changes."
My main aim is to get the patch in and get familier with the full system
(code checking,flow etc.). So, I am fixing simple warning.
If this code require changes then I can do as part of future changes.
Thanks,
Shirish
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
