From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rose, Gregory V" Subject: RE: [net 2/8] igb: fix vf lookup Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:55:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1328693798-27323-3-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1328744980.6909.8.camel@joe2Laptop> <20120208.185244.1488314318862923939.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "gospo@redhat.com" , "sassmann@redhat.com" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" To: David Miller , "joe@perches.com" Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:57944 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757796Ab2BHXzR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:55:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120208.185244.1488314318862923939.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:53 PM > To: joe@perches.com > Cc: Rose, Gregory V; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > gospo@redhat.com; sassmann@redhat.com; stable@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [net 2/8] igb: fix vf lookup > > From: Joe Perches > Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:49:40 -0800 > > > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 23:42 +0000, Rose, Gregory V wrote: > >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > > [] > >> > @@ -5012,7 +5012,8 @@ static int igb_find_enabled_vfs(struct > igb_adapter > >> > *adapter) > >> > vf_devfn = pdev->devfn + 0x80; > >> > pvfdev = pci_get_device(hw->vendor_id, device_id, NULL); > >> > while (pvfdev) { > >> > - if (pvfdev->devfn == vf_devfn) > >> > + if (pvfdev->devfn == vf_devfn && > >> > + (pvfdev->bus->number >= pdev->bus->number)) > >> > vfs_found++; > > [] > >> I'll fix this one too. You start leaning on checkpatch and you get > lazy I guess. > > > > I suppose an indentation rule could be created when > > arguments on multiple lines don't align at the open > > parenthesis, but I'm not going to rewrite emacs > > indentation rules. > > > > Presumably it should only be used with --strict. > > > > Anyone think multiple line tests with inequivalent uses > > of parentheses like this one should be noted as well? > > Actually I thought this case was perfectly fine. The imbalanced parenthesis usage bothers me. And yes, if you're going to have a tool that checks patch formatting it'd be nice if it caught things like this. But then I'm the lazy fool here... - Greg