Hi Matthew,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Matthew Giassa <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h | 80
>>> +++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>> b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>> index 84554b6..00eec18 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_ioctl.h
>>
>>
>>> #include "ks_wlan.h"
>>> #include <linux/netdevice.h>
>>>
>>> -int ks_wlan_read_config_file(struct ks_wlan_private *priv);
>>> -int ks_wlan_setup_parameter(struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
>>> - unsigned int commit_flag);
>>> +int ks_wlan_read_config_file(
>>> + struct ks_wlan_private *priv);
>>> +int ks_wlan_setup_parameter(
>>> + struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
>>> + unsigned int commit_flag);
>>
>>
>> Really?
>> If checkpatch complained about the above, you should file a bug report
>> against checkpatch.
>
> It seems to be a very deliberate message from checkpatch, complaining
> about the alignment of the beginning of individual function parameters
> in the prototype. The only two configurations which appeased it was the
> changes I put in above, or a combination of hard-tabs (8-wide, noexpand)
> and spaces, which I thought was ugly.
The first declaration fit nicely on a single line.
The second one indeed has a few spaces instead of TABs in the
continuation line. But that can be fixed easily, without moving the
first parameter to a continuation line.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
