From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753247AbbCHWSu (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:18:50 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0065.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.65]:32853 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753053AbbCHWSs (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:18:48 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:4321:4398:5007:6261:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11658:11914:12295:12296:12517:12519:12740:13019:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: talk65_126c734296a1a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2068 Message-ID: <1425853125.2745.4.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] nits: fix several coding style warnings From: Joe Perches To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Ioana Antoche , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:18:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1425811997-7275-1-git-send-email-ioana.antoche@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2015-03-08 at 23:14 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Sun, 8 Mar 2015, Ioana Antoche wrote: > > Fix checkpatch.pl warnings such as: > > * missing blank line after declarations > > * line over 80 characters [] > > @@ -298,8 +299,7 @@ static struct device *next_device(struct klist_iter *i) > > * count in the supplied callback. > > */ > > int bus_for_each_dev(struct bus_type *bus, struct device *start, > > - void *data, int (*fn)(struct device *, void *)) > > -{ > > + void *data, int (*fn)(struct device *, void *)) { > > Really curious: is this change (and a similar one below) really fixing a > style violation? Nope. The "for_each" use in a function name confuses checkpatch. Normally, those are macros. > > @@ -448,8 +449,7 @@ static struct device_driver *next_driver(struct klist_iter *i) > > * so it doesn't disappear before returning to the caller. > > */ > > int bus_for_each_drv(struct bus_type *bus, struct device_driver *start, > > - void *data, int (*fn)(struct device_driver *, void *)) > > -{ > > + void *data, int (*fn)(struct device_driver *, void *)) {