Message-ID: <1496764347.1968.22.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] move visorbus out of staging to
 drivers/virt/visorbus
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: David Kershner <david.kershner@unisys.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, corbet@lwn.net, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jes.sorensen@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org, sparmaintainer@unisys.com
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 08:52:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20170606153907.GA3243@kroah.com>
References: <1496693252-4349-1-git-send-email-david.kershner@unisys.com>
         <20170606144909.GA31938@kroah.com> <20170606145322.GA32397@kroah.com>
         <1496763229.1968.20.camel@perches.com> <20170606153907.GA3243@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1443
Lines: 39

On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 17:39 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:33:49AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 16:53 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > I noticed that in drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorbus_main.c, you
> > > > have 2 tabs for your 'struct attribute' variables, which is really odd.
> > 
> > []
> > > Also, many of the attribute callbacks in that file seem to all have
> > > their leading '{' in the wrong place.  Odd that checkpatch.pl doesn't
> > > catch that...
[]
> the following code in that file should be caught, right:
> 
> static ssize_t partition_handle_show(struct device *dev,
>                                      struct device_attribute *attr,
>                                      char *buf) {
>         struct visor_device *vdev = to_visor_device(dev);
>         u64 handle = visorchannel_get_clientpartition(vdev->visorchannel);
> 
>         return sprintf(buf, "0x%llx\n", handle);
> }
> static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(partition_handle);

Not really.

> The initial { is in the wrong place...

True.

Please understand that checkpatch looks at patches one line
at a time.  It's not very smart about function definitions
or context.

checkpatch's function definition code is pretty limited.
It can miss a lot of style misuses.

Single line function definitions brace tests work well.
Multiple line function definitions do not.