(Adding back the cc's)
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> <snip>
> > No worries.
> > No idea why it doesn't work for you.
> > Maybe the hand applying was somehow
> > faulty?
> >
> > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus' tree, but
> > it seems
> > to work.
> >
> > (on -linux)
> >
> > $ patch -p1 < cp_vsp.diff
> > patching file scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > Hunk #1 succeeded at 5634 (offset -36 lines).
> >
> > $ cat t_block.c
> > {
> > MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > "%pk",
> > foo->boo);
> > }
> > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f t_block.c
> > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
> > #2: FILE: t_block.c:2:
> > + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > + "%pk",
> > + foo->boo);
> >
> > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 lines checked
> >
> > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or
> > --fix-inplace.
> >
> > t_block.c has style problems, please review.
> >
> > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
>
>
> Applied. It works fine with your example (see attached 0001-tblock.patch) but
> it doesn't provide
> Output for me with 0002-drv-hack.patch (attached as well)
>
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0002-drv-hack.patch
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked
>
> 0002-drv-hack.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
>
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tblock.patch
> WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
> #13:
> new file mode 100644
>
> WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
> #19: FILE: t_block.c:2:
> + MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> + "%pk",
> + foo->boo);
>
> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 6 lines checked
>
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
>
> 0001-tblock.patch has style problems, please review.
>
> NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done
on patches that add just a single multi-line statement.
Andrew? Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately
for patch contexts with a single multi-line statement?
From 00191661141fb11abac22efe98ee58d37a9d9391 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: William Roberts <william.c.robe...@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:35:03 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] drv hack
Signed-off-by: William Roberts <william.c.robe...@intel.com>
---
drivers/char/applicom.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/char/applicom.c b/drivers/char/applicom.c
index e5c62dc..4f6934d 100644
--- a/drivers/char/applicom.c
+++ b/drivers/char/applicom.c
@@ -153,6 +153,10 @@ static int ac_register_board(unsigned long physloc, void __iomem *loc,
return 0;
}
+ MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
+ "%pk",
+ foo->boo);
+
boardno--;
apbs[boardno].PhysIO = physloc;
--
2.7.4
