Re: [PATCH] staging: octeon: fixed few coding style warnings
From: David Daney
Date: Wed Oct 14 2015 - 12:09:17 EST
On 10/14/2015 09:04 AM, Sakshi Bansal wrote:
Well I did not test the patch
Never send patches to code that you don't at lease attempt to compile.
since the changes were mostly coding style
related or would not affect the code.
As for the null check, if the original check is valid I can remove them
from the patch.
They are valid, and I have seen no good reason presented to change them.
If you want to churn up the code with white space changes, I cannot
prevent it, but at least accurately describe what you are doing, and
make sure you don't break the driver.
David Daney
On Oct 14, 2015 9:27 PM, "David Daney" <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 10/14/2015 08:51 AM, Sakshi Bansal wrote:
I am testing it on Fedora 21.
Does your Fedora 21 platform use this driver in any way? Does it
even build the driver (produce any .o files for any of the files you
changed)?
No, I didn't think so.
You have to have a way to test the patch (or at least compile the
files), or have other people test it for you if you make changes.
The change under concern was mentioned as
a "Check ".
Yes, notice that 'CHECK:' is emitted in the color green. It is not
a warning. Your patch subject line said you were fixing warnings.
This is not true.
On Oct 14, 2015 9:17 PM, "David Daney"
<ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
On 10/14/2015 07:06 AM, Sakshi Bansal wrote:
Fixed allignment issues and line over 80 characters
Use spell checking on 'allignment'
But that is not the main problem with the patch...
You are changing things other than white space and comment
formatting, can you tell us on which platforms the patch
was tested
to verify that you didn't break anything?
Signed-off-by: Sakshi Bansal <sakshi.april5@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sakshi.april5@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:sakshi.april5@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sakshi.april5@xxxxxxxxx>>>
NAK.
[...]
diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mdio.c
b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mdio.c
index fd9b3d8..590a6cb 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mdio.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mdio.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ int cvm_oct_phy_setup_device(struct
net_device *dev)
priv->phydev = of_phy_connect(dev, phy_node,
cvm_oct_adjust_link, 0,
PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII);
- if (priv->phydev == NULL)
+ if (!priv->phydev)
Not a coding style change. There is no WARNING generated
for this case.
return -ENODEV;
priv->last_link = 0;
diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mem.c
b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mem.c
index 5a5cdb3..d6172e4 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mem.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-mem.c
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_fill_hw_skbuff(int
pool,
int size, int elements)
while (freed) {
struct sk_buff *skb =
dev_alloc_skb(size + 256);
- if (unlikely(skb == NULL))
+ if (unlikely(!skb))
Same
break;
skb_reserve(skb, 256 - (((unsigned
long)skb->data) & 0x7f));
*(struct sk_buff **)(skb->data -
sizeof(void
*)) = skb;
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int cvm_oct_fill_hw_memory(int
pool,
int size, int elements)
* just before the block.
*/
memory = kmalloc(size + 256, GFP_ATOMIC);
- if (unlikely(memory == NULL)) {
+ if (unlikely(!memory)) {
Same
pr_warn("Unable to allocate %u
bytes
for FPA pool %d\n",
elements * size, pool);
break;
diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rgmii.c
b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rgmii.c
index 51dcb61..3d7513c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rgmii.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rgmii.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static void cvm_oct_rgmii_poll(struct
net_device *dev)
struct octeon_ethernet *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
unsigned long flags = 0;
cvmx_helper_link_info_t link_info;
- int use_global_register_lock = (priv->phydev ==
NULL);
+ int use_global_register_lock = (!priv->phydev);
Same.
I could go on, but I think you see the pattern here.
Your changelog says you are fixing warnings, but none of
these are
warning fixes.
In fact it is perfectly acceptable to compare a pointer to
NULL. It
is a common idiom in the kernel. The original author of
the code
thought it was more clear this way, and you are causing
code churn
for no reason.
Try to run this command on the kernel sources:
$ git grep -e '== NULL' | wc -l
21488
I would suggest that you convince people that the other
21,000 cases
of comparison to NULL need changing before you do it to
this driver.
David Daney
--
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/