On 6/25/24 22:56, Tom Mounet wrote:
Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch
Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
{
mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
- if (msg != NULL)
+ if (msg)
*msg = NULL;
nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
- if (msg != NULL)
+ if (msg)
*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
else
nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);
Hi Tom,
what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so
lucky. Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not
at all. Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be:
Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code.
or
Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.
If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change
history. Description from Dan under:
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/
Thanks
Bye Philipp
