* [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.