* [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation @ 2015-10-07 17:06 Deepa Dinamani 2015-10-07 19:20 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall 2015-10-08 9:43 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Deepa Dinamani @ 2015-10-07 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: outreachy-kernel Remove second leading indent of code in do/while macro blocks. This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c index b0cd935..09d37d5 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c +++ b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c @@ -96,16 +96,16 @@ do { \ #endif #define R256_8_ROUNDS(R) \ do { \ - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ - I256(2 * (R)); \ - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ - I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ + I256(2 * (R)); \ + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ + I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ } while (0) #define R256_UNROLL_R(NN) \ @@ -187,16 +187,16 @@ do { \ #endif /* end of looped code definitions */ #define R512_8_ROUNDS(R) /* do 8 full rounds */ \ do { \ - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ - I512(2 * (R)); \ - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ - I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ + I512(2 * (R)); \ + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ + I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ } while (0) #define R512_UNROLL_R(NN) \ ((SKEIN_UNROLL_512 == 0 && \ -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation 2015-10-07 17:06 [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation Deepa Dinamani @ 2015-10-07 19:20 ` Julia Lawall 2015-10-08 1:26 ` Deepa Dinamani 2015-10-08 9:43 ` Greg KH 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2015-10-07 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Deepa Dinamani; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > Remove second leading indent of code in do/while macro blocks. > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements > > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > index b0cd935..09d37d5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > @@ -96,16 +96,16 @@ do { \ > #endif > #define R256_8_ROUNDS(R) \ > do { \ Could it be nicer to indent the do instead? julia > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > - I256(2 * (R)); \ > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > - I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > + I256(2 * (R)); \ > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > + I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ > } while (0) > > #define R256_UNROLL_R(NN) \ > @@ -187,16 +187,16 @@ do { \ > #endif /* end of looped code definitions */ > #define R512_8_ROUNDS(R) /* do 8 full rounds */ \ > do { \ > - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > - I512(2 * (R)); \ > - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > - I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ > + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > + I512(2 * (R)); \ > + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > + I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ > } while (0) > #define R512_UNROLL_R(NN) \ > ((SKEIN_UNROLL_512 == 0 && \ > -- > 1.9.1 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20151007170600.GA24764%40deepa-ubuntu. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation 2015-10-07 19:20 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall @ 2015-10-08 1:26 ` Deepa Dinamani 2015-10-08 6:54 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Deepa Dinamani @ 2015-10-08 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall; +Cc: Deepa Dinamani, outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:20:38PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > > Remove second leading indent of code in do/while macro blocks. > > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: > > > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > > index b0cd935..09d37d5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > > @@ -96,16 +96,16 @@ do { \ > > #endif > > #define R256_8_ROUNDS(R) \ > > do { \ > > Could it be nicer to indent the do instead? > > julia Is reducing the size of the diff a primary goal, or is it a coding style preference? Both approaches are used by other macros in this same source file. Should they all be changed for consistency? deepa > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > - I256(2 * (R)); \ > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > - I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > + I256(2 * (R)); \ > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > + I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ > > } while (0) > > > > #define R256_UNROLL_R(NN) \ > > @@ -187,16 +187,16 @@ do { \ > > #endif /* end of looped code definitions */ > > #define R512_8_ROUNDS(R) /* do 8 full rounds */ \ > > do { \ > > - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > - I512(2 * (R)); \ > > - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > - I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ > > + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > + I512(2 * (R)); \ > > + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > + I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ > > } while (0) > > #define R512_UNROLL_R(NN) \ > > ((SKEIN_UNROLL_512 == 0 && \ > > -- > > 1.9.1 > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20151007170600.GA24764%40deepa-ubuntu. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation 2015-10-08 1:26 ` Deepa Dinamani @ 2015-10-08 6:54 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2015-10-08 6:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Deepa Dinamani; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:20:38PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > > > > Remove second leading indent of code in do/while macro blocks. > > > > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: > > > > > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > > > index b0cd935..09d37d5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c > > > @@ -96,16 +96,16 @@ do { \ > > > #endif > > > #define R256_8_ROUNDS(R) \ > > > do { \ > > > > Could it be nicer to indent the do instead? > > > > julia > > Is reducing the size of the diff a primary goal, or is it a coding > style preference? Both approaches are used by other macros in this > same source file. Should they all be changed for consistency? When something is subordinate to something else, I would personnaly prefer to see the thing indented. With the do out in the leftmost column, it looks like it is on its own, floating in space. So I think that indenting the definition of a macro everywhere would be better. julia > > deepa > > > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > > - I256(2 * (R)); \ > > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > > - R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > > - R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > > - I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ > > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > > + I256(2 * (R)); \ > > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > > + R256(0, 1, 2, 3, R_256_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > > + R256(0, 3, 2, 1, R_256_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > > + I256(2 * (R) + 1); \ > > > } while (0) > > > > > > #define R256_UNROLL_R(NN) \ > > > @@ -187,16 +187,16 @@ do { \ > > > #endif /* end of looped code definitions */ > > > #define R512_8_ROUNDS(R) /* do 8 full rounds */ \ > > > do { \ > > > - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > > - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > > - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > > - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > > - I512(2 * (R)); \ > > > - R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > > - R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > > - R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > > - R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > > - I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ > > > + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_0, 8 * (R) + 1); \ > > > + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_1, 8 * (R) + 2); \ > > > + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_2, 8 * (R) + 3); \ > > > + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_3, 8 * (R) + 4); \ > > > + I512(2 * (R)); \ > > > + R512(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R_512_4, 8 * (R) + 5); \ > > > + R512(2, 1, 4, 7, 6, 5, 0, 3, R_512_5, 8 * (R) + 6); \ > > > + R512(4, 1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 7, R_512_6, 8 * (R) + 7); \ > > > + R512(6, 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 4, 3, R_512_7, 8 * (R) + 8); \ > > > + I512(2 * (R) + 1); /* and key injection */ \ > > > } while (0) > > > #define R512_UNROLL_R(NN) \ > > > ((SKEIN_UNROLL_512 == 0 && \ > > > -- > > > 1.9.1 > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > > > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20151007170600.GA24764%40deepa-ubuntu. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20151008012611.GA20044%40deepa-ubuntu. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation 2015-10-07 17:06 [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation Deepa Dinamani 2015-10-07 19:20 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall @ 2015-10-08 9:43 ` Greg KH 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2015-10-08 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Deepa Dinamani; +Cc: outreachy-kernel On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:06:02AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > Remove second leading indent of code in do/while macro blocks. > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: > > WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements > > Signed-off-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/skein/skein_block.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) Why did you send these a second time? What was wrong with the first versions? Please resend these, all and say why you are resending, thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-08 9:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-10-07 17:06 [PATCH 1/2] staging: skein: remove extra indentation Deepa Dinamani 2015-10-07 19:20 ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall 2015-10-08 1:26 ` Deepa Dinamani 2015-10-08 6:54 ` Julia Lawall 2015-10-08 9:43 ` Greg KH
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.