Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200426161319.23941-1-john.oldman@polehill.co.uk> <20200426170719.GA2138855@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200426170719.GA2138855@kroah.com>
From:   John Oldman <john.oldman@polehill.co.uk>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:39:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+JojbrD5F6foCUGZT_fKW+MnJnuQsFH87bfy9V+WUXwxqKyXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank
 line after declarations
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

(this time sent as plain text)

I was not so happy about this one, even though I went and committed it.

Without the blank line checkpatch reports:

WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#160: FILE: drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c:160:
+ struct tasklet_struct task;
+ volatile unsigned long chan_issued;

So I dumly inserted a blank line to silence checkpatch.

In hindsight maybe a false positive, blank lines in a struct!

Someone may have been there before as there is a previous blank line
in the struct mtk_hsdam_engine :o)

Cheers
John


On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 18:07, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 05:13:19PM +0100, John Oldman wrote:
> > Fixed coding style issue
>
> No you didn't :)
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Oldman <john.oldman@polehill.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c
> > index 14592ed9ce98..dd35d0bce6ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/mt7621-dma/mtk-hsdma.c
> > @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@ struct mtk_hsdam_engine {
> >       struct device_dma_parameters dma_parms;
> >       void __iomem *base;
> >       struct tasklet_struct task;
> > +
> >       volatile unsigned long chan_issued;
> >
> >       struct mtk_hsdma_chan chan[1];
>
> This file seems to be the "does the submitter look at the patch they are
> sending" litmus test.
>
> Does that really do what you think it does?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h