Re: [PATCH] fixing the coding style changes

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:17:11PM +0530, saurabh wrote:
> >From 999005638f8d3f95075fdfdc6bf8f7ff88810f5d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 08:58:42 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] fixing the coding style changes
> 
> Attached a patch whic fixes the checkpatch.pl script error
> Here, couple of static variables were initialise to 0 which 
> was violating the linux coding style standards.
> 
> diffstat for this patch is:
> hub.c |    4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> To apply the patch, in the root of a kernel tree use:
> patch -p1 < 0001-fixing-the-coding-style-changes.patch
> 
> Signed-off-by: Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/core/hub.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> index 431839b..6abc4ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void hub_event(struct work_struct *work);
>  DEFINE_MUTEX(usb_port_peer_mutex);
>  
>  /* cycle leds on hubs that aren't blinking for attention */
> -static bool blinkenlights = 0;
> +static bool blinkenlights;
>  module_param(blinkenlights, bool, S_IRUGO);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(blinkenlights, "true to cycle leds on hubs");
>  
> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(initial_descriptor_timeout,
>   * otherwise the new scheme is used.  If that fails and "use_both_schemes"
>   * is set, then the driver will make another attempt, using the other scheme.
>   */
> -static bool old_scheme_first = 0;
> +static bool old_scheme_first;
>  module_param(old_scheme_first, bool, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(old_scheme_first,
>  		 "start with the old device initialization scheme");


Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You sent multiple patches, yet no indication of which ones should be
  applied in which order.  Greg could just guess, but if you are
  receiving this email, he guessed wrong and the patches didn't apply.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for a description of how
  to do this so that Greg has a chance to apply these correctly.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/