Hi Aliya,
I think that the subject of your patch can be reduced a bit. For example,
why don't you remove that "code style -"?
On venerdì 15 aprile 2022 07:19:01 CEST Aliya Rahmani wrote:
> Code style warnings reported by checkpatch.
> Improve the layout of a function header:
> *Put the first parameter immediately after the '(' and align the other
> parameters underneath it.
You are doing two different things. Please only one logical change per
patch. Furthermore, why that "*" before "Put"?
>
> Signed-off-by: Aliya Rahmani <aliyarahmani786@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v1->v2 changes: Put static and void on a single line.
>
> v2->v3->v4 changes: Rework commit description.
>
> ---
> drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/
rxtx.c
> index 53506e242a96..01dc83b2f4bc 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> @@ -567,19 +567,16 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> return buf->duration;
> }
>
> -static
> -void
> -s_vFillRTSHead(
> - struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> - unsigned char byPktType,
> - void *pvRTS,
> - unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> - bool bNeedAck,
> - bool bDisCRC,
> - struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr,
> - unsigned short wCurrentRate,
> - unsigned char byFBOption
> -)
> +static void
Why storage class and function type are on a separate line? Is it a special
convention for this driver?
> +s_vFillRTSHead(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> + unsigned char byPktType,
> + void *pvRTS,
> + unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> + bool bNeedAck,
> + bool bDisCRC,
> + struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr,
> + unsigned short wCurrentRate,
> + unsigned char byFBOption)
> {
> unsigned int uRTSFrameLen = 20;
>
> --
> 2.25.1
Thanks,
Fabio M. De Francesco
