[PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank line after declarations

[PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank line after declarations

[John Oldman]

Fixed coding style issue

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];
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank line after declarations

[Greg KH]

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

Re: [PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank line after declarations

[John Oldman]

(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

Re: [PATCH] Staging: mt7621-dma: mtk-hsdma.c: Fix Missing a blank line after declarations

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:21:25PM +0100, John Oldman wrote:
> 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.

As checkpatch is just a simple script, it is not always right, don't
blindly follow it.

> In hindsight maybe a false positive, blank lines in a struct might not be
> helpful.

It can be, but not here.

thanks,

greg k-h