2014-01-12 14:28:06

by Joe Borg

Subject: [PATCH] AlarmDev: Changing is_wakeup() to be a function to pass checkpatch

---
drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c b/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c
index 647694f..87f2a02 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c
@@ -66,13 +66,15 @@ static struct devalarm alarms[ANDROID_ALARM_TYPE_COUNT];
*
* Return: 1 if this is a wakeup alarm, otherwise 0
*/
-static int is_wakeup(enum android_alarm_type type)
+static int is_wakeup(enum andriod_alarm_type type)
{
- return (type == ANDROID_ALARM_RTC_WAKEUP ||
- type == ANDROID_ALARM_ELAPSED_REALTIME_WAKEUP);
+ if (type == ANDROID_ALARM_RTC_WAKEUP ||
+ type == ANDROID_ALARM_ELAPSED_REALTIME_WAKEUP)
+ return 1;
+ else
+ return 0;
}

-
static void devalarm_start(struct devalarm *alrm, ktime_t exp)
{
if (is_wakeup(alrm->type))
--
1.8.3.2

2014-01-12 15:33:55

by Levente Kurusa

Subject: Re: [PATCH] AlarmDev: Changing is_wakeup() to be a function to pass checkpatch

Hello,

2014/1/12 Joe <[email protected]>:
> ---
> drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

You are missing a commit message. Your subject as well looks a bit weird.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c b/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c
> index 647694f..87f2a02 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/alarm-dev.c
> @@ -66,13 +66,15 @@ static struct devalarm alarms[ANDROID_ALARM_TYPE_COUNT];
> *
> * Return: 1 if this is a wakeup alarm, otherwise 0
> */
> -static int is_wakeup(enum android_alarm_type type)
> +static int is_wakeup(enum andriod_alarm_type type)

What is this? andriod? Did it compile?

> {
> - return (type == ANDROID_ALARM_RTC_WAKEUP ||
> - type == ANDROID_ALARM_ELAPSED_REALTIME_WAKEUP);
> + if (type == ANDROID_ALARM_RTC_WAKEUP ||
> + type == ANDROID_ALARM_ELAPSED_REALTIME_WAKEUP)
> + return 1;
> + else
> + return 0;

While this is correct, the better fix would be to remove the parentheses..

Also, I think a similar patch was already applied, not sure though.

> [...]

--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa