[PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[Branden Bonaby]

Fixes confusing assignment operator alignment as highlighted by checkpath

Signed-off-by: Branden Bonaby <brandonbonaby94@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c
index 8a862f718d5c..95105e597160 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c
@@ -331,9 +331,8 @@ static int prism2_scan(struct wiphy *wiphy,
 	for (i = 0;
 		(i < request->n_channels) && i < ARRAY_SIZE(prism2_channels);
 		i++)
-		msg1.channellist.data.data[i] =
-			ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(
-				request->channels[i]->center_freq);
+		msg1.channellist.data.data[i] = ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(
+						request->channels[i]->center_freq);
 	msg1.channellist.data.len = request->n_channels;
 
 	msg1.maxchanneltime.data = 250;
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Branden Bonaby wrote:

> Fixes confusing assignment operator alignment as highlighted by checkpath

The commit message should be in the imperative.  Fix rather than Fixes.

Fix is actually, not a very good word, because it doesn't describe what
you actually did.

checkpath -> checkpatch

I believe that checkpatch would also be warning about an ( at the end of
the line, and the change has preserved that problem.  Maybe a better
solution would be to leave the function call where it is and move the
argument up to the same line.  If it seems more readable that way, going
slightly over 80 characters could be OK.  One would have to see how it
looks.

julia

>
> Signed-off-by: Branden Bonaby <brandonbonaby94@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c
> index 8a862f718d5c..95105e597160 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/cfg80211.c
> @@ -331,9 +331,8 @@ static int prism2_scan(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>  	for (i = 0;
>  		(i < request->n_channels) && i < ARRAY_SIZE(prism2_channels);
>  		i++)
> -		msg1.channellist.data.data[i] =
> -			ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(
> -				request->channels[i]->center_freq);
> +		msg1.channellist.data.data[i] = ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(
> +						request->channels[i]->center_freq);
>  	msg1.channellist.data.len = request->n_channels;
>
>  	msg1.maxchanneltime.data = 250;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20190309031718.GA18429%40branx011-Vostro-430.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[Branden Bonaby]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

 

> Fixes confusing assignment operator alignment as highlighted by checkpath 
>
> > The commit message should be in the imperative.  Fix rather than Fixes. 
>
> > Fix is actually, not a very good word, because it doesn't describe what 
> > you actually did. 
>
> > checkpath -> checkpatch 
>
> > I believe that checkpatch would also be warning about an ( at the end of 
> > the line, and the change has preserved that problem.  Maybe a better 
> > solution would be to leave the function call where it is and move the 
> > argument up to the same line.  If it seems more readable that way, going 
> > slightly over 80 characters could be OK.  One would have to see how it 
> > looks. 
>
> > julia 
>
>  
thanks for the feedback. 
the only thing is when I move the function call and its arguments to the 
same like like below it makes the line 103 characters long 
msg1.channellist.data.data[i] = 
ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(request->channels[i]->center_freq);

I could do something like move each member in the argument under each other 
leaving the "->" at the end and then making a new line under it
but other than those two its probably better I leave that line alone since 
I don't want to break it.
what do you think?

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1610 bytes --]

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[Julia Lawall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2021 bytes --]



On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Branden Bonaby wrote:

>  
>       Fixes confusing assignment operator alignment as highlighted by checkpath
>
>       > The commit message should be in the imperative.  Fix rather than Fixes.
>
>       > Fix is actually, not a very good word, because it doesn't describe what
>       > you actually did.
>
>       > checkpath -> checkpatch
>
>       > I believe that checkpatch would also be warning about an ( at the end of
>       > the line, and the change has preserved that problem.  Maybe a better
>       > solution would be to leave the function call where it is and move the
>       > argument up to the same line.  If it seems more readable that way, going
>       > slightly over 80 characters could be OK.  One would have to see how it
>       > looks.
>
>       > julia
>
>  
> thanks for the feedback.
> the only thing is when I move the function call and its arguments to the same like like below it makes the line 103 characters long
> msg1.channellist.data.data[i] = ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(request->channels[i]->center_freq);

My suggestion was to leave the function name on the second line where it
was.  You have to make some compromises.

> I could do something like move each member in the argument under each other leaving the "->" at the end and then making a new line under it

No, never do this.

julia

> but other than those two its probably better I leave that line alone since I don't want to break it.
> what do you think?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/9474be9e-9cd2-46a6-8b24-539b28e4a86c%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[Branden Bonaby]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3014 bytes --]



On Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 8:38:38 AM UTC-5, Julia Lawall wrote:


On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Branden Bonaby wrote: 

>   
>       Fixes confusing assignment operator alignment as highlighted by 
checkpath 
> 
>       > The commit message should be in the imperative.  Fix rather than 
Fixes. 
> 
>       > Fix is actually, not a very good word, because it doesn't 
describe what 
>       > you actually did. 
> 
>       > checkpath -> checkpatch 
> 
>       > I believe that checkpatch would also be warning about an ( at the 
end of 
>       > the line, and the change has preserved that problem.  Maybe a 
better 
>       > solution would be to leave the function call where it is and move 
the 
>       > argument up to the same line.  If it seems more readable that 
way, going 
>       > slightly over 80 characters could be OK.  One would have to see 
how it 
>       > looks. 
> 
>       > julia 
> 
>   
> thanks for the feedback. 
> the only thing is when I move the function call and its arguments to the 
same like like below it makes the line 103 characters long 
> msg1.channellist.data.data[i] = 
ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(request->channels[i]->center_freq); 

My suggestion was to leave the function name on the second line where it 
was.  You have to make some compromises. 

> I could do something like move each member in the argument under each 
other leaving the "->" at the end and then making a new line under it 

No, never do this. 

julia 

> but other than those two its probably better I leave that line alone 
since I don't want to break it. 
> what do you think? 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"outreachy-kernel" group. 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to outreachy-kern...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> To post to this group, send email to outreach...@googlegroups.com 
<javascript:>. 
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/9474be9e-9cd2-46a6-8b24-539b28e4a86c%40googlegroups.com. 

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> 
>

I edited my patch into a second version but the message ID in my original 
message looks like its actually my machine
no clue why that's happening as I went through all the steps in the 
Kernelnewbies wiki and also steps here 
https://www.linux.com/news/fetching-email-mutt . So what I did was, I 
resent it using git send-email using the message ID 
of the forum post in the --in-reply-to section. Looks like the Patch v2 
sent to greg but doesn't appear here, so I don't think Greg
will actually look at it and you wouldn't see it here. Should I resend it 
using git send-email and make it a new post but under v2
since I know git send-email is working and actually giving me the correct 
Message-ID?

PS. I can send and receive emails through mutt which goes through my Gmail 
but all the emails from it has a message ID that ends in 
"@<my_machine_name>"

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4717 bytes --]

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Fix assignment operator alignment

[Julia Lawall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3458 bytes --]



On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Branden Bonaby wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 8:38:38 AM UTC-5, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Branden Bonaby wrote:
>
> >  
> >       Fixes confusing assignment operator alignment as highlighted by checkpath
> >
> >       > The commit message should be in the imperative.  Fix rather than Fixes.
> >
> >       > Fix is actually, not a very good word, because it doesn't describe what
> >       > you actually did.
> >
> >       > checkpath -> checkpatch
> >
> >       > I believe that checkpatch would also be warning about an ( at the end of
> >       > the line, and the change has preserved that problem.  Maybe a better
> >       > solution would be to leave the function call where it is and move the
> >       > argument up to the same line.  If it seems more readable that way, going
> >       > slightly over 80 characters could be OK.  One would have to see how it
> >       > looks.
> >
> >       > julia
> >
> >  
> > thanks for the feedback.
> > the only thing is when I move the function call and its arguments to the same like like below it makes the line 103 characters long
> > msg1.channellist.data.data[i] = ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(request->channels[i]->center_freq);
>
> My suggestion was to leave the function name on the second line where it
> was.  You have to make some compromises.
>
> > I could do something like move each member in the argument under each other leaving the "->" at the end and then making a new line under it
>
> No, never do this.
>
> julia

Can you sent up your mailer so that it puts > in front of quoted text?  It
looks like you wrote the part that I wrote.

>
> > but other than those two its probably better I leave that line alone since I don't want to break it.
> > what do you think?
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kern...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to outreach...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/9474be9e-9cd2-46a6-8b24-539b28e4a86c%40googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
> >
>
> I edited my patch into a second version but the message ID in my original message looks like its actually my machine
> no clue why that's happening as I went through all the steps in the Kernelnewbies wiki and also steps here
> https://www.linux.com/news/fetching-email-mutt . So what I did was, I resent it using git send-email using the message ID
> of the forum post in the --in-reply-to section. Looks like the Patch v2 sent to greg but doesn't appear here, so I don't think Greg
> will actually look at it and you wouldn't see it here. Should I resend it using git send-email and make it a new post but under v2
> since I know git send-email is working and actually giving me the correct Message-ID?

I think that Greg will look at anything he receives.  If you want to try
sending it again, you should use v3, because Greg will likely have
received v2.

>
> PS. I can send and receive emails through mutt which goes through my Gmail but all the emails from it has a message ID that ends in "@<my_machine_name>"

Maybe someone else has solved this issue and can help you.

julia