On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Khadija wrote:
>
> > Hey Julia! Thank you for the feedback. I will make the following changes and
> > resend the patch:
> > 1. Correct the patch description that is right under the subject line (make
> > it precise and imperative) and make sure that it does not have more than 70
> > characters per line.
> > 2. Adjust all the arguments of wait_event_interruptible_timeout so that they
> > are lined up. All of them should begin right under ( .
>
> The problem here is that the ( is really far to the right. My opinion is
> that the position of the second argument (ie the first one that is on a
> line of its own) is ok in this case. So you can leave that one where it
> is and line up the other one.
>
I kind of like lining things up like this. I think if you can't align
things with the parens, then it's nice to at least use two tabs. It's
not kernel style or anyone's style explicitly, but I kind of like it.
It doesn't make checkpatch happy.
I guess I probably wouldn't bother sending this patch. To controversial.
I'd just move on to something else. It's not like there is a shortage
of stuff to do. One idea in this file is that you could use
sysfs_emit() in sysfs_read() and get rid of char tmp[32]; buffer.
regards,
dan carpenter
diff --git a/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c b/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
index dfd2b357f484..0bf180cf44a6 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
@@ -383,10 +383,10 @@ static ssize_t axis_fifo_read(struct file *f, char __user *buf,
*/
mutex_lock(&fifo->read_lock);
ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(fifo->read_queue,
- ioread32(fifo->base_addr + XLLF_RDFO_OFFSET),
- (read_timeout >= 0) ?
- msecs_to_jiffies(read_timeout) :
- MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
+ ioread32(fifo->base_addr + XLLF_RDFO_OFFSET),
+ (read_timeout >= 0) ?
+ msecs_to_jiffies(read_timeout) :
+ MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
if (ret <= 0) {
if (ret == 0) {
