3.16.50-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx>
commit e1395a321eab1a7833d82e952eb8255e0a1f03cb upstream.
This code in drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c
function "uli526x_timer":
1086 } else
1087 if ((tmp_cr12 & 0x3) && db->link_failed) {
[...snip...]
1109 }
1110 else if(!(tmp_cr12 & 0x3) && db->link_failed)
1111 {
[...snip...]
1117 }
1118 db->init=0;
is misleadingly indented: the
db->init=0
is indented as if part of the else clause at line 1086, but it is
independent of it (no braces before the "if" at line 1087).
This patch fixes the indentation to reflect the actual meaning of the code,
though is it actually meant to be part of the "else" clause? (I'm a
compiler developer, not a kernel person). It also adds spaces around
the assignment, to placate checkpatch.pl.
Seen via an experimental new gcc warning I'm working on for gcc 6,
-Wmisleading-indentation, using gcc r223098 adding
-Werror=misleading-indentation to KBUILD_CFLAGS in Makefile.
The experimental GCC emits this warning (as an error), rightly IMHO:
drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c: In function ‘uli526x_timer’:
drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c:1118:3: error: statement is
indented as if it were guarded by... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
db->init=0;
^
drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c:1086:4: note: ...this ‘else’
clause, but it is not
} else
^
Hope this is helpful
Dave
Signed-off-by: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/uli526x.c
@@ -1115,7 +1115,7 @@ static void uli526x_timer(unsigned long
netif_carrier_off(dev);
}
}
- db->init=0;
+ db->init = 0;
/* Timer active again */
db->timer.expires = ULI526X_TIMER_WUT;