On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:23:59PM +0800, Jhih-Ming Hunag wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I fixed some coding style following scripts/checkpatch.pl suggestion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jhih-Ming Hunag <fbihjme...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
> b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
> index 43ecb4a..a2d36b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static void ion_buffer_add(struct ion_device *dev,
> p = &(*p)->rb_right;
> } else {
> pr_err("%s: buffer already found.", __func__);
> - BUG();
> + WARN_ON();
> }
> }
>
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static struct ion_buffer *ion_buffer_create(struct
> ion_heap *heap,
> goto err2;
> }
>
> - if (buffer->sg_table == NULL) {
> + if (!buffer->sg_table) {
> WARN_ONCE(1, "This heap needs to set the sgtable");
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto err1;
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static void *ion_buffer_kmap_get(struct ion_buffer
> *buffer)
> return buffer->vaddr;
> }
> vaddr = buffer->heap->ops->map_kernel(buffer->heap, buffer);
> - if (WARN_ONCE(vaddr == NULL,
> + if (WARN_ONCE(!vaddr,
> "heap->ops->map_kernel should return ERR_PTR on error"))
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> if (IS_ERR(vaddr))
> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ int ion_alloc(size_t len, unsigned int heap_id_mask,
> unsigned int flags)
> }
> up_read(&dev->lock);
>
> - if (buffer == NULL)
> + if (!buffer)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> if (IS_ERR(buffer))
> --
> 2.7.4
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:
- Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the
patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
merge issues that larger patches can cause.
- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the
section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
properly describe the change.
- 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
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
