From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: netdev@pradeepdalvi.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] netdev: ethernet dev_alloc_skb to netdev_alloc_skb
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:07:40 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120206.120740.1750013890695365167.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d8ad7b1e88df72e284cbc8b8fba1745530923375.1328445742.git.netdev@pradeepdalvi.com>
From: "Pradeep A. Dalvi" <netdev@pradeepdalvi.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:21:05 +0530
> From: Pradeep A Dalvi <netdev@pradeepdalvi.com>
>
> Replaced deprecating dev_alloc_skb with netdev_alloc_skb in drivers/net/ethernet
> - Removed extra skb->dev = dev after netdev_alloc_skb
>
> Signed-off-by: Pradeep A Dalvi <netdev@pradeepdalvi.com>
I'm not applying this, you screw up the code formatting in too
many locations.
Do NOT take the output of checkpatch literally, look at the result
and determine on your own whether it looks reasonable or not:
> - struct sk_buff *skb = dev_alloc_skb(np->rx_buf_sz + NV_RX_ALLOC_PAD);
> + struct sk_buff *skb =
> + netdev_alloc_skb(dev, np->rx_buf_sz + NV_RX_ALLOC_PAD);
This, looks like crap. The longer line is better.
> - struct sk_buff *skb = dev_alloc_skb(hmp->rx_buf_sz + 2);
> + struct sk_buff *skb = netdev_alloc_skb(dev,
> + hmp->rx_buf_sz + 2);
Same thing here.
> - struct sk_buff *skb = dev_alloc_skb(yp->rx_buf_sz + 2);
> + struct sk_buff *skb = netdev_alloc_skb(dev,
> + yp->rx_buf_sz + 2);
Column line-up rule violated, and this looks like crap as a result. The long
single line would look 100 times better.
And there are many other instances of this problem.
Here's my advice, just do the textual change of the function name and add
the network device argument, don't mess with the coding style at all.
You're fare much better than how these patches ended up in the cases where
you tried to "improve" things.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-06 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-05 12:49 [PATCH v5 1/5] " Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-05 12:50 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] " Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-06 16:49 ` David Miller
2012-02-06 17:40 ` Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-05 12:50 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] " Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-06 16:52 ` David Miller
2012-02-07 20:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-02-07 20:29 ` David Miller
2012-02-05 12:51 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] " Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-06 17:07 ` David Miller [this message]
2012-02-06 17:43 ` Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-06 21:16 ` [PATCH v6 " Pradeep A Dalvi
2012-02-08 23:50 ` David Miller
2012-02-05 12:51 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] " Pradeep A. Dalvi
2012-02-06 21:16 ` [PATCH v6 " Pradeep A Dalvi
2012-02-08 23:50 ` David Miller
2012-02-06 16:45 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] " David Miller
2012-02-06 17:37 ` Pradeep A. Dalvi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120206.120740.1750013890695365167.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@pradeepdalvi.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®