From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751972AbbJaSpR (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:45:17 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:34798 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750920AbbJaSpL (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:45:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:45:08 +0100 From: Bogicevic Sasa To: Joe Perches Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:staging:gdm72xx Fix line over 80 characters Message-ID: <20151031184508.GB19945@gmail.com> References: <1446309480-17917-1-git-send-email-brutallesale@gmail.com> <1446310672.2757.219.camel@perches.com> <20151031171416.GA19945@gmail.com> <1446316993.2757.222.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1446316993.2757.222.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/31, Joe Perches wrote: >On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 18:14 +0100, Bogicevic Sasa wrote: >> On 10/31, Joe Perches wrote: >> >On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 17:38 +0100, Bogicevic Sasa wrote: >> >> This fixes line over 80 character messages from checkpatch.pl >> >[] >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_qos.c b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/gdm_qos.c >> >[] >> >> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ void gdm_recv_qos_hci_packet(void *nic_ptr, u8 *buf, int size) >> >> >> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&qcb->qos_lock, flags); >> >> qcb->csr[index].sfid = sfid; >> >> - qcb->csr[index].classifier_rule_en = ((buf[pos++] << 8) & 0xff00); >> >> + qcb->csr[index].classifier_rule_en = (buf[pos++] << 8) & 0xff00; >> >> qcb->csr[index].classifier_rule_en += buf[pos++]; >> >> if (qcb->csr[index].classifier_rule_en == 0) >> >> qcb->qos_null_idx = index; >> > >> >If you do this one, please do all of them in the >> >same block. >> > >> > qcb->csr[index].srcport_lo = ((buf[pos++]<<8)&0xff00); >> > qcb->csr[index].srcport_lo += buf[pos++]; >> > qcb->csr[index].srcport_hi = ((buf[pos++]<<8)&0xff00); >> > qcb->csr[index].srcport_hi += buf[pos++]; >> > qcb->csr[index].dstport_lo = ((buf[pos++]<<8)&0xff00); >> > qcb->csr[index].dstport_lo += buf[pos++]; >> > qcb->csr[index].dstport_hi = ((buf[pos++]<<8)&0xff00); >> > >> >It'd probably be nicer to use a temporary for >> >qcb->csr[index] too. >> > >> >Also, the += is kind of odd. These are really a >> >le16_to_cpu conversion, so it might be nicer to use >> >that mechanism. >> > >> > csr->srcport_lo = get_unaligned_le16(&buf[pos]); >> > pos += 2; >> > >> > >> It is not a problem to remove unnecesarry brackets but bear in mind I am >> new to bitwise stuff. > >No worries, it's not that obvious. > >> So how it should be, like this? >> >> qcb->csr[index].srcport_lo = get_unaligned_le16(&buf[pos]); >> pos += 2; >> qcb->csr[index].srcport_lo = buf[pos]; > >No, it'd be: > > csr->srcport_lo = get_unaligned_le16(&buf[pos]); > pos += 2; > csr->srcport_hi = get_unaligned_le16(&buf[pos]); > pos += 2; > csr->dstport_lo = get_unaligned_le16(&buf[pos]); > pos += 2; > csr->dstport_hi = get_unaligned_le16(&buf[pos]); > pos += 2; > > Ah ok Ill do it like that than and resend