On 14-09-16 09:21 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> 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
>
Thanks Sudip,
I will fix the patch later if you want. In addition is my other patch OK or do I need to fix it still?
Nick
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
