Hi Gabe, On 13/11/11 13:52, Gabe Black wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com > <mailto:graeme.r...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Gabe, > > On 08/11/11 20:48, Gabe Black wrote: > > If no controller is present, the i8402 driver should return > immediately and > > not attempt to operate on the missing hardware. > > > > In kbd_input_empty, the status register is checked every millisecond > to see > > whether the input buffer is empty, up to a timeout which is tracked by > > decrimenting a counter each time the check is performed. The decrement > is > > performed with a postfix -- operator, and the value of the counter is > > checked in place. That means that when the counter reaches zero and the > > loop terminates, it will actually be decrimented one more time and > become > > -1. That value is returned as the return value of the function. That > would > > give the right answer if it wasn't for that extra decrement because a > > timeout would indicate that the buffer never became empty. > > > > This change fixes both of those bugs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabebl...@chromium.org > <mailto:gabebl...@chromium.org>> > > --- > > drivers/input/i8042.c | 12 +++++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > total: 1 errors, 5 warnings, 30 lines checked > > Patch is not checkpatch clean - Can you please fix checkpatch issues and > change tag to 'x86:' style and resubmit > > Thanks, > > Graeme > > > checkpatch doesn't like it because I was consistent with the existing > incorrect style in the file. There are three or four options for how to > handle this. > > 1. Match the current style and ignore checkpatch (what I've already done). > 2. Fix the style on just the lines I've modified. > 3. Fix the style within a "local" area around my changes, for some > definition of local, along with my changes. > 4. Submit a separate cleanup patch which fixes the style first. > > What is the standard way of approaching this sort of situation? I'm ok with > option 1 if you are since I already have that ready to go, and I'd be fine > with 4 if you'd like to clean up this file first like you've been cleaning > up some others. 2 and 3 would make the style in that file inconsistent and > harder to read, but if that's standard practice I'll do that.
I think the standard we are now adopting (enforcing) is #4 - A two patch series consisting of a checkpatch cleanup of the file and checkpatch clean patch for the changes. Of course there are exceptions: - The checkpatch cleanup would be too onerous (touches too many files, the patched file is too large, too close to release) and the bugfix is critical - The bugfix covers too many files (again, - The file is from another repository (typically Linux) and the patch has been applied to that repository (in which case, a commit reference is required in the patch summary) I'm happy for Wolfgang to correct me Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot