From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753416AbbIQJpj (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:45:39 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:40311 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112AbbIQJpi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:45:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:45:34 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Jeremy Linton Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, steve.capper@arm.com, dwoods@ezcip.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, shijie.huang@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: Shorten lines which exceed 80 characters Message-ID: <20150917094533.GL25444@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1442430186-9083-1-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <1442430186-9083-3-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1442430186-9083-3-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:03:01PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > PTE definitions in this file exceed 80 characters > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h > index 24154b0..4489cf6 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h > @@ -99,14 +99,14 @@ > #define PTE_TYPE_FAULT (_AT(pteval_t, 0) << 0) > #define PTE_TYPE_PAGE (_AT(pteval_t, 3) << 0) > #define PTE_TABLE_BIT (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 1) > -#define PTE_USER (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 6) /* AP[1] */ > -#define PTE_RDONLY (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 7) /* AP[2] */ > -#define PTE_SHARED (_AT(pteval_t, 3) << 8) /* SH[1:0], inner shareable */ > -#define PTE_AF (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 10) /* Access Flag */ > -#define PTE_NG (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 11) /* nG */ > -#define PTE_DBM (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 51) /* Dirty Bit Management */ > -#define PTE_PXN (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 53) /* Privileged XN */ > -#define PTE_UXN (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 54) /* User XN */ > +#define PTE_USER (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 6) /* AP[1] */ > +#define PTE_RDONLY (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 7) /* AP[2] */ > +#define PTE_SHARED (_AT(pteval_t, 3) << 8) /* inner shareable */ > +#define PTE_AF (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 10) /* Access Flag */ > +#define PTE_NG (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 11) /* nG */ > +#define PTE_DBM (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 51) /* Dirty Bit Mgmt */ > +#define PTE_PXN (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 53) /* Privileged XN */ > +#define PTE_UXN (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 54) /* User XN */ I told you already ;), I'm not taking this patch. Some (of my) rules for checkpatch usage: 1. Don't run it on existing code with the aim of fixing it 2. Existing coding style takes precedence over checkpatch warnings (I have another rule but I don't want to impose it on anyone: I never run checkpatch) -- Catalin