Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] staging: rtl8192e: Fix coding style

[Suniel Mahesh]

On Wednesday 15 March 2017 03:44 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:21:51PM +0530, sunil.m@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > @@ -1796,7 +1796,7 @@ static short _rtl92e_alloc_rx_ring(struct net_device *dev)
> >
> >  	for (rx_queue_idx = 0; rx_queue_idx < MAX_RX_QUEUE; rx_queue_idx++) {
> >  		priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx] = pci_zalloc_consistent(priv->pdev,
> > -					      sizeof(*priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx]) * priv->rxringcount,
> > +		sizeof(*priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx]) * priv->rxringcount,
> >  					      &priv->rx_ring_dma[rx_queue_idx]);
>
> No, don't do that.  The original was easier to read.  Ignore
> checkpatch.pl if it gives you bad advice.
>
> >  		if (!priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx] ||
> >  		    (unsigned long)priv->rx_ring[rx_queue_idx] & 0xFF) {
> > @@ -2272,7 +2272,8 @@ static int _rtl92e_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *rq, int cmd)
> >  	int ret = -1;
> >  	struct rtllib_device *ieee = priv->rtllib;
> >  	u32 key[4];
> > -	const u8 broadcast_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff};
> > +	const u8 broadcast_addr[ETH_ALEN] = {0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff,
> > +									0xff};
>
> Just drop this patch...  The original is better.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
hi, when you say drop this patch, should I send the entire patch set as 
PATCH v4 with this particular patch dropped ?

regards
suniel