On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Philipp Hortmann wrote:
> 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/
How about adding "Issue identified by checkpatch"? Checkpatch helped find
the problem, so it would be nice to acknowledge that.
julia
>
> Thanks
>
> Bye Philipp
>
>
