Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221022070612.13009-1-tanjubrunostar0@gmail.com>
 <20221022070612.13009-2-tanjubrunostar0@gmail.com> <Y1OlaBVGgHvAipuB@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y1OlaBVGgHvAipuB@kroah.com>
From:   Tanju Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:24:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHJEyKVh9J-OMS=fBU7oiFtx7U00o2MFhQKRN2i9DhE7g3D_hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] staging: vt6655: fix lines ending in a '('
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        outreachy@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 9:17 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 07:06:07AM +0000, Tanjuate Brunostar wrote:
> > fix serveral checkpatch errors related to lines ending with a '(' by
> > refactoring the code lines
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 149 ++++++++++++++--------------------
> >  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > index 1e5036121665..f9d0b00d7cff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> > @@ -141,13 +141,11 @@ static __le16 vnt_time_stamp_off(struct vnt_private *priv, u16 rate)
> >   */
> >  static
> >  unsigned int
> > -s_uGetTxRsvTime(
> > -     struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> > -     unsigned char byPktType,
> > -     unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> > -     unsigned short wRate,
> > -     bool bNeedAck
> > -)
> > +s_uGetTxRsvTime(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
>
> You have a strange mix of choices here for how you changed the code.
>
> This time you did not move the "static" or "unsigned int" to the same
> line as the function name, but then:
>
> > +             unsigned char byPktType,
> > +             unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> > +             unsigned short wRate,
> > +             bool bNeedAck)
> >  {
> >       unsigned int uDataTime, uAckTime;
> >
> > @@ -215,19 +213,16 @@ static __le16 get_rtscts_time(struct vnt_private *priv,
> >
> >  /* byFreqType 0: 5GHz, 1:2.4Ghz */
> >  static
> > -unsigned int
> > -s_uGetDataDuration(
> > -     struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> > -     unsigned char byDurType,
> > -     unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> > -     unsigned char byPktType,
> > -     unsigned short wRate,
> > -     bool bNeedAck,
> > -     unsigned int uFragIdx,
> > -     unsigned int cbLastFragmentSize,
> > -     unsigned int uMACfragNum,
> > -     unsigned char byFBOption
> > -)
> > +unsigned int s_uGetDataDuration(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
>
> You moved "unsigned int" here, but then:
>
>
> > +                             unsigned char byDurType,
> > +                             unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> > +                             unsigned char byPktType,
> > +                             unsigned short wRate,
> > +                             bool bNeedAck,
> > +                             unsigned int uFragIdx,
> > +                             unsigned int cbLastFragmentSize,
> > +                             unsigned int uMACfragNum,
> > +                             unsigned char byFBOption)
> >  {
> >       bool bLastFrag = false;
> >       unsigned int uAckTime = 0, uNextPktTime = 0, len;
> > @@ -316,17 +311,13 @@ s_uGetDataDuration(
> >  }
> >
> >  /* byFreqType: 0=>5GHZ 1=>2.4GHZ */
> > -static
> > -__le16
> > -s_uGetRTSCTSDuration(
> > -     struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> > -     unsigned char byDurType,
> > -     unsigned int cbFrameLength,
> > -     unsigned char byPktType,
> > -     unsigned short wRate,
> > -     bool bNeedAck,
> > -     unsigned char byFBOption
> > -)
> > +static __le16 s_uGetRTSCTSDuration(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
>
> You did both the static and the return type here.
>
> Pick one style and stick with it please.  Consistancy matters, that is
> why we have a coding style to start with.  Brains and pattern matching
> and all that.
>
> In this case, this last one (both static and the return type), should be
> used.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

OK thanks