lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/3] staging: gdm72xx: Minor cleanup
    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



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-04-26 14:01    [W:4.055 / U:0.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site