On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:55:22AM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:18:06PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:01:13PM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote: <snip> > > > + FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING, ENABLE)| > > > + FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, PLANE, ENABLE); > > I am getting confused now. > > This part you have modified in patch 10/12 and i just replied that > > you have missed two modifications. > > > Thanks for your feedback Sudip, I have a few questions: > 1. After applying the first 11 patches I ran checkpatch again and noticed that > I missed three warnings so I ran a 12th patch fixing them. That's why you > see the 12th patch modifying a file that another patch already touched. > What should be done in this type of situation? you have to start from the beginning again. :( I have faced such similar situation also, but starting for the beginnig is the only way. > > 2. On Patch 3 you pointed out two trailing whitespace errors. > I ran checkpatch on all the patches before I sent them to > make sure I didn't introduce any new errors, but it looks like they were introduced in your patch. > - int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *,const char *,u32,u32,u32, > - u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32); > + int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *, const char *, u32, u32, u32, u32, the original code was having three u32, i think when you moved one more u32 from the following line you forgot to remove the space after that. >however > there are *many* warnings and errors showing up from > the poor styling already present and I missed these > whitespace errors in the mess. > Can I make checkpatch suppress any errors that might have already > been present in the code and only show me those issues introduced > by the patch itself? If not, how did you identify it? i dont think checkpatch can work like that way. identification was easy. i saw checkpatch giving error and noticed you have modified the code. So i checked the original code if trailing whitespace was there or not. regards sudip _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
