On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:39:20PM +0530, Suniel Mahesh wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 March 2017 03:44 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:21:51PM +0530, sunil.m@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>@@ -1796,7 +1796,7 @@ static short _rtl92e_alloc_rx_ring(struct net_device *dev)
> >>
> >> for (rx_queue_idx = 0; rx_queue_idx < MAX_RX_QUEUE; rx_queue_idx++) {
> >> priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx] = pci_zalloc_consistent(priv->pdev,
> >>- sizeof(*priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx]) * priv->rxringcount,
> >>+ sizeof(*priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx]) * priv->rxringcount,
> >> &priv->rx_ring_dma[rx_queue_idx]);
> >
> >No, don't do that. The original was easier to read. Ignore
> >checkpatch.pl if it gives you bad advice.
> >
> >> if (!priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx] ||
> >> (unsigned long)priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx] & 0xFF) {
> >>@@ -2272,7 +2272,8 @@ static int _rtl92e_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *rq, int cmd)
> >> int ret = -1;
> >> struct rtllib_device *ieee = priv->rtllib;
> >> u32 key[4];
> >>- const u8 broadcast_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff};
> >>+ const u8 broadcast_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff,
> >>+ 0xff};
> >
> >Just drop this patch... The original is better.
> >
> >regards,
> >dan carpenter
> >
> hi, when you say drop this patch, should I send the entire patch set
> as PATCH v4 with this particular patch dropped ?
Just drop [PATCH 2/8]... Hopefully you can see why the original was
more readable? We don't really care about checkpatch.pl except as a
tool to make the code more readable to human beings.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
