2008-08-02 19:25:06

by Paolo Ciarrocchi

Subject: [PATCH 3/5] x86: Coding style fixes to arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c

Before:
total: 3 errors, 0 warnings, 31 lines checked

After:
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 31 lines checked

paolo@paolo-desktop:~/linux.trees.git$ md5sum /tmp/strstr_32.o.*
c96006ec3387862e5bacb139207a3098 /tmp/strstr_32.o.after
c96006ec3387862e5bacb139207a3098 /tmp/strstr_32.o.before

Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c | 6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c b/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c
index 42e8a50..8e2d55f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c
@@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ __asm__ __volatile__(
"jne 1b\n\t"
"xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
"2:"
- :"=a" (__res), "=&c" (d0), "=&S" (d1)
- :"0" (0), "1" (0xffffffff), "2" (cs), "g" (ct)
- :"dx", "di");
+ : "=a" (__res), "=&c" (d0), "=&S" (d1)
+ : "0" (0), "1" (0xffffffff), "2" (cs), "g" (ct)
+ : "dx", "di");
return __res;
}

--
1.5.6.rc1.21.g03300

2008-08-04 06:20:25

by Dmitri Vorobiev

Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86: Coding style fixes to arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c

Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> Before:
> total: 3 errors, 0 warnings, 31 lines checked
>
> After:
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 31 lines checked
>
> paolo@paolo-desktop:~/linux.trees.git$ md5sum /tmp/strstr_32.o.*

It seems very tempting to merge this file with arch/x86/lib/string_32.c, or is there any compelling reason to keep these two separate?

> c96006ec3387862e5bacb139207a3098 /tmp/strstr_32.o.after
> c96006ec3387862e5bacb139207a3098 /tmp/strstr_32.o.before
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Ciarrocchi <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c | 6 +++---
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c b/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c
> index 42e8a50..8e2d55f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/strstr_32.c
> @@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ __asm__ __volatile__(
> "jne 1b\n\t"
> "xorl %%eax,%%eax\n\t"
> "2:"
> - :"=a" (__res), "=&c" (d0), "=&S" (d1)
> - :"0" (0), "1" (0xffffffff), "2" (cs), "g" (ct)
> - :"dx", "di");
> + : "=a" (__res), "=&c" (d0), "=&S" (d1)
> + : "0" (0), "1" (0xffffffff), "2" (cs), "g" (ct)
> + : "dx", "di");
> return __res;

It's strange that checkpatch.pl does not cater for such an obvious style violation as this last line.

Dmitri

> }
>