lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/2]linux-usb:Define a new macro for USB storage match rules
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:45 AM
> To: Fangxiaozhi (Franko)
> Cc: Sergei Shtylyov; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> Xueguiying (Zihan); Linlei (Lei Lin); Yili (Neil); Wangyuhua (Roger, Credit);
> Huqiao (C); balbi@ti.com; mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net;
> sebastian@breakpoint.cc
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2]linux-usb:Define a new macro for USB storage match
> rules
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 04:18:34PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > On 25-01-2013 6:44, fangxiaozhi 00110321 wrote:
> >
> > >From: fangxiaozhi <huananhu@huawei.com>
> >
> > >1. Define a new macro for USB storage match rules:
> > > matching with Vendor ID and interface descriptors.
> >
> > >Signed-off-by: fangxiaozhi <huananhu@huawei.com>
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > diff -uprN linux-3.8-rc4_orig/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c
> > >linux-3.8-rc4/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c
> > >--- linux-3.8-rc4_orig/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c 2013-01-22
> > >14:12:42.595238727 +0800
> > >+++ linux-3.8-rc4/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c 2013-01-22
> > >+++ 14:16:01.398250305 +0800
> > >@@ -120,6 +120,17 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(quirks, "supplemental l
> > > .useTransport = use_transport, \
> > > }
> > >
> > >+#define UNUSUAL_VENDOR_INTF(idVendor, cl, sc, pr, \
> > >+ vendor_name, product_name, use_protocol, use_transport, \
> > >+ init_function, Flags) \
> > >+{ \
> > >+ .vendorName = vendor_name, \
> > >+ .productName = product_name, \
> > >+ .useProtocol = use_protocol, \
> > >+ .useTransport = use_transport, \
> > >+ .initFunction = init_function, \
> > >+}
> >
> > Shouldn't the field initilaizers be indented with tab, not space?
>
> Yes it must. fangxiaozhi, please always run your patches through the
> scripts/checkpatch.pl tool before sending them out (note, you will have to
> ignore the CamelCase warnings your patch produces, but not the other
> ones.)
>
-----What's wrong with it?
-----I have checked the patches with scripts/checkpatch.pl before sending.
-----There is no other warning or error in my patches except CamelCase warnings.
-----So what's wrong now?

> Please do that on both of these patches and resend them.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-26 03:21    [W:0.052 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site