On 6/26/24 06:48, Julia Lawall wrote:
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
Hi Julia,
The following lines sound very authoritative. It is only my opinion and
can be wrong.
I think checkpatch is valued a lot because every patch send in is
checked by checkpatch. checkpatch can be mentioned in the description.
But the developer cannot hide at all behind a checkpatch warning/error
message. The developer must take full responsibility for the patch. The
developer needs to use common sense.
Please have a look at this email from Greg:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/2024062443-udder-spotted-cc0d@gregkh/T/#m280ebb2be94e434234f405e722fc35dc6d1db710
I think that Greg once wrote that he does not care about the tool that
found the issue. He much more cares about if the change makes sense. The
"Why" in the description is most important for him. And the why cannot
be because checkpatch or any other tool told the developer so.
Thanks for your support.
Bye Philipp
