Message-ID: <1501604576.7190.7.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ks7010: fix styling WARNINGs
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Ashish Kalra <eashishkalra@gmail.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        wsa@the-dreams.de, driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:22:56 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1501603889-1988-1-git-send-email-eashishkalra@gmail.com>
References: <1501470921-1947-1-git-send-email-eashishkalra@gmail.com>
         <1501603889-1988-1-git-send-email-eashishkalra@gmail.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: 2930
Lines: 90

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 17:11 +0100, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kalra <eashishkalra@gmail.com>

Still many issues with this patch submission:

o no commit message
o no version of patch submission in subject line

And other issues below:

> ---
>  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> Trivial style changes. There are still "line over 80 characters"
> checkpatch.pl warnings, but I think they are best left alone as
> breaking these could hurt readability

This message should go above the --- line and the
version information about what changed between
each submission should go below the --- line.

> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
[]
> @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
>   *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>   *   published by the Free Software Foundation.
>   */
> -

Why is this line removed?

>  #include <linux/firmware.h>
>  #include <linux/mmc/card.h>
>  #include <linux/mmc/sdio_func.h>
> @@ -32,19 +31,39 @@
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(sdio, ks7010_sdio_ids);
>  
> -#define inc_txqhead(priv) \
> -	(priv->tx_dev.qhead = (priv->tx_dev.qhead + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define inc_txqtail(priv) \
> -	(priv->tx_dev.qtail = (priv->tx_dev.qtail + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define cnt_txqbody(priv) \
> -	(((priv->tx_dev.qtail + TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->tx_dev.qhead)) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -
> -#define inc_rxqhead(priv) \
> -	(priv->rx_dev.qhead = (priv->rx_dev.qhead + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define inc_rxqtail(priv) \
> -	(priv->rx_dev.qtail = (priv->rx_dev.qtail + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define cnt_rxqbody(priv) \
> -	(((priv->rx_dev.qtail + RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->rx_dev.qhead)) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> +static int inc_txqhead(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->tx_dev.qhead = (priv->tx_dev.qhead + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int inc_txqtail(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->tx_dev.qtail = (priv->tx_dev.qtail + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int inc_rxqtail(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->rx_dev.qtail = (priv->rx_dev.qtail + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int inc_rxqhead(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->rx_dev.qhead = (priv->rx_dev.qhead + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}

Why are the functions above not returning void?

> +
> +static int cnt_rxqbody(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	return  (((priv->rx_dev.qtail + RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->rx_dev.qhead)) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE);
> +}
> +
> +static int cnt_txqbody(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	return (((priv->tx_dev.qtail + TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->tx_dev.qhead)) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE);
> +}

Why are these 2 functions above not returning unsigned int?