From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752661AbaDWIuF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:50:05 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:60112 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752520AbaDWIuA (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:50:00 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: z7g1MWm9JZsu6wnEghhkEkpGaavrZEX0IO325cmsRS1I 1398242999 Message-ID: <53577E96.10106@fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:49:26 +0800 From: Michalis Pappas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Carpenter CC: Greg KH , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] staging: gdm72xx: Minor cleanup References: <532BF9B0.2080008@fastmail.fm> <20140418225229.GA28077@kroah.com> <53534051.2020504@fastmail.fm> <53534116.3040705@fastmail.fm> <20140422093743.GC26890@mwanda> <53570BAA.3080709@fastmail.fm> <20140423080447.GS26890@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20140423080447.GS26890@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/23/2014 04:04 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:39:06AM +0800, Michalis Pappas wrote: >> After all patches have been applied, the only remaining issue on the >> TODO list is to conform to the coding standards. The remaining issues >> reported by checkpatch.pl are probably pedantic, so if agreed, that >> task can be removed from the list too. > > So I did a: > for i in $(find drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ -name \*.c) ; do ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -f $i 2>&1 ; done | tee err-list > Hi Dan, thanks for looking at this. From the above snippet I realize that I wasn't aware of the strict flag, so significantly less errors were produced. The issues I was referring to as pedantic are: WARNING: unchecked sscanf return value #296: FILE: gdm_wimax.c:296: + sscanf(e->dev->name, "wm%d", &idx); does this really need to be checked? ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis #34: FILE: usb_ids.h:34: +#define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid) \ + {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)}, \ + {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)} these macros are only used for brevity in a subsequent array declaration, so it seems that the parenthesis are not really needed. Moreover, due to recent commits on checkpatch.pl, a few more issues are now reported, even when not using the strict flag. In any case, I can re-run using strict and submit an additional set of patches for the remaining issues. Regards, Michalis