Re: [PATCH] staging: speakup: Fix warning of line over 80 characters.

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 28.03.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Joe Perches:
> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:40 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Shirish Gajera <gshirishfree@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
> 
> []
> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/speakup/main.c b/drivers/staging/speakup/main.c
> []
>>> @@ -423,7 +423,8 @@ static void announce_edge(struct vc_data *vc, int msg_id)
>>>         if (spk_bleeps & 1)
>>>                 bleep(spk_y);
>>>         if ((spk_bleeps & 2) && (msg_id < edge_quiet))
>>> -               synth_printf("%s\n", spk_msg_get(MSG_EDGE_MSGS_START + msg_id - 1));
>>> +               synth_printf("%s\n",
>>> +                       spk_msg_get(MSG_EDGE_MSGS_START + msg_id - 1));
>>
>> Instead of blindly adding newlines to silence checkpatch.pl, what
>> about reworking the code?
>> printf("%s\n", ..) cries for a puts().
> 
> There is no synth_puts

So what?
Fix it! :-)

>>> @@ -1131,7 +1132,8 @@ static void spkup_write(const char *in_buf, int count)
>>>         if (in_count > 2 && rep_count > 2) {
>>>                 if (last_type & CH_RPT) {
>>>                         synth_printf(" ");
>>> -                       synth_printf(spk_msg_get(MSG_REPEAT_DESC2), ++rep_count);
>>> +                       synth_printf(spk_msg_get(MSG_REPEAT_DESC2),
>>> +                                       ++rep_count);
>>>                         synth_printf(" ");
>>
>> This printf stuff looks odd. synth_printf() seems to take a format
>> string, in this case the format string
>> is returned by spk_msg_get(), smells like a format string bug.
> 
> Nope, but it would be nicer to avoid these spk_msg_get
> functions for the indices that are used with printf style
> formatting.
> 
>>>                 }
>>>                 rep_count = 0;
>>> @@ -1847,7 +1849,8 @@ static void speakup_win_set(struct vc_data *vc)
>>>                         win_right = spk_x;
>>>                 }
>>>                 snprintf(info, sizeof(info), spk_msg_get(MSG_WINDOW_BOUNDARY),
>>> -                        (win_start) ? spk_msg_get(MSG_END) : spk_msg_get(MSG_START),
>>> +                        (win_start) ?
>>> +                               spk_msg_get(MSG_END) : spk_msg_get(MSG_START),
>>>                          (int)spk_y + 1, (int)spk_x + 1);
>>
>> Same here. Also please resolve the ?: mess.
> 
> I don't think there's a ?: mess, but the code looks wrong.  
> 
> 	win_start ? MSG_END : MSG_START

Face it, the whole code is horrible and lines other 80 chars are the *least*
problem.
Submitting a patch just for the sake of silencing checkpatch.pl is a waste of time.
After applying this patch the driver 0 better than before.

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/