On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 10:38 -0700, Jing Huang wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 17:49 -0700, Jing Huang wrote: > > > + > > > + return (*(union bfi_addr_u *) &addr); > > > +} > > > > Have you run checkpatch on this code? It produces many errors due to > > your "return" usage for one.. The usual style of return is not to use > > parentheses since it's really not a function .. > > > > The line I quoted above gives the following error, > > > > ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required > > #266: FILE: drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_cb_ioim_macros.h:132: > > + return (*(union bfi_addr_u *) &addr); > > > > First of all I'd consider making your code consistent with respect to > > the return statements .. I noticed that you sometimes use the > > parentheses sometimes not .. Since it's more with Linux style I'd just > > remove all the extra parentheses.. > > > > Checkpatch produces many other errors in your code .. If you haven't > > already evaluated those errors, I'd do go through each patch and review > > the errors (and the warnings) that it produces since checkpatch can give > > you a fairly mechanical view into how well your code matches the Linux > > coding style. The less the output from checkpatch the better .. > > > > Daniel > > > > Hi Daniel, > > I did run checkpatch.pl and it didn't report any ERROR or WARNING. Do you use any specific flags? No nothing special .. I run it in the following way, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl this-is-the-test.patch or cat this-is-the-test.patch | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl - how did you run it? Usually it will report something like the following if it finds nothing, total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, XXX lines checked Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
