Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753007AbcJCSSa (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:18:30 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0122.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.122]:38207 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751516AbcJCSS1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:18:27 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:541:599:960:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2827:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3308:3351:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:4321:5007:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:13069:13311:13357:13894:14659:14721:21080:30012:30054:30070:30083:30091,0,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,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: park85_668b4d58d190a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1556 Message-ID: <1475518703.24781.4.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] staging: wlang-ng: fix line style warnings in prism2sta.c From: Joe Perches To: Sergio Paracuellos , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 11:18:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <57F29F79.5060301@gmail.com> References: <1475510655-12729-1-git-send-email-sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> <1475510655-12729-15-git-send-email-sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> <1475511366.24781.1.camel@perches.com> <57F29F79.5060301@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.0-2ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 601 Lines: 12 On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 20:12 +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > El 2016年10月03日 a las 18:16, Joe Perches escribió: > > Perhaps better as hw->scanresults = kmemdup(inf, sizeof(*inf), GFP_ATOMIC); > I agree. But because all the code is full of sizeof(struct xxx) I though > it would be bettter to follow the actual style and not change only one... > I don't have any problem in fix this patch and resend it. What should I do? I suggest not fixing this patch. Maybe just send another patch changing all the applicable sizeof(struct ) uses to sizeof(*var) with the appropriate line wrapping.