Hi Frans, On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:23:29AM -0500, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > Hi all, > > I've examined some more files for checkpatch problems. > After this I'll post 17 patches. > checkpatch lists no problems with them > They are all compile tested > > Within the files I address some problems are not resolved: > > There were a few places where lines were a few chars too long but were not easy > to break > (e.g. because it was a long URL). > > There was one place where a macro needed a do while(0); didn't peek at that one > yet > > And on a place there were two assignments in an if. Previously on a different > case Jean told me > it was intentional, therefore I did not touch it > (I did touch a few places where there was a single assignment within an if). > > I might be doing a few more of these later today or next few days. > There are still about 50 files with errors or warning left. However, I have > kinda picked the low hanging fruit (= the files that only have a few errors). > > Best regards, Frans > > PS: I did not bother to report the details of the checkpatch errors that were > fixed in the commit message. Would be great if you could do that, though. Not in the headline, but in the text. Otherwise, I or Jean would have to do it, for which we don't necessarily have the time. > For some of the files that still are to be done that would result in commit > messages of > 100 lines (and not too useful). That is why you do it in the explanation, not in the headline ... Another nitpick: We commonly use hwmon: (drivername) This is a commit message as commit headline. Not much difference, but it would save us a couple of minutes if you could do that as well. Patches look good, except for the last one for which I sent you separate feedback. Would be great if you could resubmit the series with the above changes. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
