On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM, nick <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 14-09-16 09:06 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:44:27AM -0400, nick wrote:
>>> I am attaching two check patch patches I wrote in the last few days as I am unable to get a reply
>>> from the maintainers. Would someone please send them off for me.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>
>>> >From 7bf4229fa2f9c4fcf3243bc738c74bfdc58a6594 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:53:24 -0400
>>> Subject: [PATCH] staging wlan-ng: Add missing a blank line after declarations
>>>
>>> Fixing trivial checkpatch warnings about missing line after
>>> declarations.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Tested by compilation only.
>>> drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
>>> index 1f2c78c..20d146b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
>>> @@ -1376,6 +1376,7 @@ int hfa384x_drvr_setconfig(hfa384x_t *hw, u16 rid, void *buf, u16 len);
>>> static inline int hfa384x_drvr_getconfig16(hfa384x_t *hw, u16 rid, void *val)
>>> {
>>> int result = 0;
>>> +
>>> result = hfa384x_drvr_getconfig(hw, rid, val, sizeof(u16));
>>> if (result == 0)
>>> *((u16 *) val) = le16_to_cpu(*((u16 *) val));
>>> @@ -1385,6 +1386,7 @@ static inline int hfa384x_drvr_getconfig16(hfa384x_t *hw, u16 rid, void *val)
>>> static inline int hfa384x_drvr_setconfig16(hfa384x_t *hw, u16 rid, u16 val)
>>> {
>>> u16 value = cpu_to_le16(val);
>>> +
>>> return hfa384x_drvr_setconfig(hw, rid, &value, sizeof(value));
>>> }
>>> @@ -1402,6 +1404,7 @@ static inline int
>>> hfa384x_drvr_setconfig16_async(hfa384x_t *hw, u16 rid, u16 val)
>>> {
>>> u16 value = cpu_to_le16(val);
>>> +
>>> return hfa384x_drvr_setconfig_async(hw, rid, &value, sizeof(value),
>>> NULL, NULL);
>>> }
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>
>>> >From 5eb3de22f0760ece1e838d48c8dd9148b4331cdc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:07:24 -0400
>>> Subject: [PATCH] staging netlogic: Fix checkpatch errors in xlr_net.c
>>>
>>> This removes the checkpatch errors related to a needed line below
>>> declaration of a struct and another about a non nessary printk
>>> message about a NULL allocated skb due to the function returning
>>> NULL to the caller of the function and the printk no longer being'
>>> used or needed by any callers.
>>>
>>
>> spelling mistakes
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/netlogic/xlr_net.c | 5 ++---
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/netlogic/xlr_net.c b/drivers/staging/netlogic/xlr_net.c
>>> index 9bf407d..28a42831 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/netlogic/xlr_net.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/netlogic/xlr_net.c
>>> @@ -142,10 +142,8 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *xlr_alloc_skb(void)
>>>
>>> /* skb->data is cache aligned */
>>> skb = alloc_skb(XLR_RX_BUF_SIZE, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> - if (!skb) {
>>> - pr_err("SKB allocation failed\n");
>>
>> why the error message was removed ?
>>
>>
>>> + if (!skb)
>>> return NULL;
>>> - }
>>> mac_put_skb_back_ptr(skb);
>>> return skb;
>>> }
>>> @@ -1104,6 +1102,7 @@ err_gmac:
>>> static int xlr_net_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> struct xlr_net_priv *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> +
>>> unregister_netdev(priv->ndev);
>>> mdiobus_unregister(priv->mii_bus);
>>> mdiobus_free(priv->mii_bus);
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>
>> ohhh .. yeah .. and both the patch failed when i tried to apply them to next-20140916
>>
>>
>> why are we wasting our time for your patches , which are bound to have some problem ????
>>
>> thanks
>> sudip
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>>
> I tried these on Greg's tree of staging-next and they worked for me.
> Nick
in drivers/staging/netlogic/xlr_net.c file of next-20140916
1) in line 142 we just have an "} else {" (doesnot match your patch)
2) in the same file , there is only one instance of "pr_err("SKB
allocation failed\n");" , and that is at line 208 , and that is
followed by a "return -ENOMEM;" , but your patch is showing that there
is a return NULL ....
thanks
sudip
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
