On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:31:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:13:27 -0800 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 15:55 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:06:34PM +0530, Yash Omer wrote:
> > > > This patch fix line should not end with open parenthesis found by
> > > > checkpatch.plscript.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yash Omer <yashomer0...@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > index 52054a528723..39fb737543b5 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > > > @@ -383,8 +383,8 @@ static void nvec_request_master(struct work_struct
> > > > *work)
> > > > msg = list_first_entry(&nvec->tx_data, struct nvec_msg,
> > > > node);
> > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nvec->tx_lock, flags);
> > > > nvec_gpio_set_value(nvec, 0);
> > > > - err = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> > > > - &nvec->ec_transfer,
> > > > msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> > > > + err = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout
> > > > + (&nvec->ec_transfer, msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> > >
> > > The original code is basically fine... It's OK to ignore checkpatch in
> > > this situation.
> >
> > Right.
>
> Yes, I'd say that checkpatch is simply wrong here. I'd prefer that a
> function call always have the opening paren hard up against the
> function name. Because I often search for "foo(" to find the callsites
> of foo() and I expect that some code-parsing tools do the same thing.
> The "(" is the application of an operator to an identifier.
>
> So I'd vote for simply nuking that checkpatch warning altogether.
That's my vote as well, I do that same type of search.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
