Hey Nick,
Nice try to fix a checkpatch warning. But do read what you're changing.
Yes your format is right. If you haven't already, take a look at "git
send-email" .
Have fun hacking :D
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:47 PM, nick <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Hugo,
> Sorry about that. On the other hand was the patch good in terms of format?
> Cheers Nick
>
> On 14-10-11 09:52 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, nick wrote:
>>> Thank you for your help, I'll study the code and see what I can do
>>> about it. Do you have any suggestions of how to fix this checkpatch
>>> warning?
>>
>> Ignore it. The checker has clearly triggered on a false positive --
>> this is not a function call, and should not be held to that standard.
>> (Take a look at where the macro is actually used, to see what's going
>> on here). Move on to find something more interesting to fix.
>>
>> Hugo.
>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On 14-10-11 05:53 AM, Kristofer Hallin wrote:
>>>> Even if you use checkpath you _should_ understand what you are changing.
>>>> The output of checkpatch merely there to help.
>>>>
>>>> In this case you can see that this is a macro just a few lines up in the
>>>> code.
>>>> On 11 Oct 2014 11:46, "Sudip Mukherjee" <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But in my opinion checkpatch is here to help us fix style
>>>>> problems , but we should not blindly act on checkpatch warnings.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> sudip
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin
>>>>> <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that, in this case, checkpatch.pl contributed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>> WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '('
>>>>>> #415: FILE: drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c:415:
>>>>>> + if (c.s.field op (value)) {
>>>>> \
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Agreed - that is why I mentioned the patch is neither right nor useful:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -daveti
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <
>>>>> sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>>> It will work. But my point of saying that was c.s.field ==(value) is
>>>>>>>> again not according to the style.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It also works as value is surrounded by (), though I do not think the
>>>>> patch itself is right or useful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tian
>>>>>>>>> dave.jing.tian@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <
>>>>> sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:55:48PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes checkpatch coding style warning about unneeded space
>>>>>>>>>>> between function name an parentheses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> Untested
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>> b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 5f9db4c..bbeb0cc 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ struct octeon_hcd {
>>>>>>>>>>> type c;
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> while (1) {
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> c.u32 = __cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address);
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> - if (c.s.field op (value)) {
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (c.s.field op(value)) {
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> have you read the code before modifying it?
>>>>>>>>>> this is not a function.
>>>>>>>>>> have you seen how CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 is being called?
>>>>>>>>>> on every call of CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 op is the operator "=="
>>>>>>>>>> so when called the macro will be c.s.field == (value).
>>>>>>>>>> if your patch is applied then it will become c.s.field ==(value) ..
>>>>> will that be correct ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> result = 0;
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> break;
>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>>> } else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) {
>>>>> \
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
