Re: [PATCH 12/12] Staging: sm750fb: Insert spaces after commas in three files.

[Isaac Assegai <isaac.a.travers@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 01:55:56PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:55:22AM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:18:06PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:01:13PM -0700, Isaac Assegai wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > +					  FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, TIMING, ENABLE)|
> > > > +					  FIELD_SET(0, CRT_DISPLAY_CTRL, PLANE, ENABLE);
> > > I am getting confused now.
> > > This part you have modified in patch 10/12 and i just replied that
> > > you have missed two modifications.
> > > 
> > Thanks for your feedback Sudip, I have a few questions:
> > 1. After applying the first 11 patches I ran checkpatch again and noticed that
> > I missed three warnings so I ran a 12th patch fixing them. That's why you
> > see the 12th patch modifying a file that another patch already touched.
> > What should be done in this type of situation?
> you have to start from the beginning again. :(
> I have faced such similar situation also, but starting for the beginnig
> is the only way.
> > 
> > 2. On Patch 3 you pointed out two trailing whitespace errors.
> > I ran checkpatch on all the patches before I sent them to
> > make sure I didn't introduce any new errors,
> but it looks like they were introduced in your patch.
> > -     int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *,const char *,u32,u32,u32,
> > -                                             u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32,u32);
> > +     int (*de_imageblit)(struct lynx_accel *, const char *, u32, u32, u32, u32,
> the original code was having three u32, i think when you moved one more
> u32 from the following line you forgot to remove the space after that.
> 
> >however
> > there are *many* warnings and errors showing up from
> > the poor styling already present and I missed these
> > whitespace errors in the mess.
> > Can I make checkpatch suppress any errors that might have already
> > been present in the code and only show me those issues introduced
> > by the patch itself? If not, how did you identify it?
> i dont think checkpatch can work like that way.
> identification was easy. i saw checkpatch giving error and noticed you
> have modified the code. So i checked the original code if trailing
> whitespace was there or not.
> 
> regards
> sudip
Okay,

I'll re-run this and send a new version in the morning.

Thanks,
Isaac