[PATCH] staging: wilc1000: linux_mon: Rearrange the code

[PATCH] staging: wilc1000: linux_mon: Rearrange the code

[Tamara Diaconita]

Put a part of some lines in a new line to have less than 80 characters.

Fixed the checkpath.pl issue:
CHECK: Line over 80 characters.

Signed-off-by: Tamara Diaconita <diaconita.tamara@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_mon.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_mon.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_mon.c
index f328d75..6897a51 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_mon.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_mon.c
@@ -68,18 +68,21 @@ void WILC_WFI_monitor_rx(u8 *buff, u32 size)
 	if (pkt_offset & IS_MANAGMEMENT_CALLBACK) {
 		/* hostapd callback mgmt frame */
 
-		skb = dev_alloc_skb(size + sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
+		skb = dev_alloc_skb(size +
+			sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
 		if (!skb)
 			return;
 
 		memcpy(skb_put(skb, size), buff, size);
 
-		cb_hdr = (struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr *)skb_push(skb, sizeof(*cb_hdr));
+		cb_hdr = (struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr *)skb_push(skb,
+			  sizeof(*cb_hdr));
 		memset(cb_hdr, 0, sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
 
 		cb_hdr->hdr.it_version = 0; /* PKTHDR_RADIOTAP_VERSION; */
 
-		cb_hdr->hdr.it_len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
+		cb_hdr->hdr.it_len =
+			cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
 
 		cb_hdr->hdr.it_present = cpu_to_le32(
 				(1 << IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RATE) |
@@ -95,16 +98,19 @@ void WILC_WFI_monitor_rx(u8 *buff, u32 size)
 		}
 
 	} else {
-		skb = dev_alloc_skb(size + sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr));
+		skb = dev_alloc_skb(size +
+			sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr));
 
 		if (!skb)
 			return;
 
 		memcpy(skb_put(skb, size), buff, size);
-		hdr = (struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr *)skb_push(skb, sizeof(*hdr));
+		hdr = (struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr *)skb_push(skb,
+		       sizeof(*hdr));
 		memset(hdr, 0, sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr));
 		hdr->hdr.it_version = 0; /* PKTHDR_RADIOTAP_VERSION; */
-		hdr->hdr.it_len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr));
+		hdr->hdr.it_len =
+			cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_hdr));
 		hdr->hdr.it_present = cpu_to_le32
 				(1 << IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RATE); /* | */
 		hdr->rate = 5; /* txrate->bitrate / 5; */
@@ -196,16 +202,19 @@ static netdev_tx_t WILC_WFI_mon_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
 	skb_pull(skb, rtap_len);
 
 	if (skb->data[0] == 0xc0 && (!(memcmp(broadcast, &skb->data[4], 6)))) {
-		skb2 = dev_alloc_skb(skb->len + sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
+		skb2 = dev_alloc_skb(skb->len +
+			sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
 
 		memcpy(skb_put(skb2, skb->len), skb->data, skb->len);
 
-		cb_hdr = (struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr *)skb_push(skb2, sizeof(*cb_hdr));
+		cb_hdr = (struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr *)skb_push(skb2,
+			sizeof(*cb_hdr));
 		memset(cb_hdr, 0, sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
 
 		cb_hdr->hdr.it_version = 0; /* PKTHDR_RADIOTAP_VERSION; */
 
-		cb_hdr->hdr.it_len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
+		cb_hdr->hdr.it_len =
+			cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct wilc_wfi_radiotap_cb_hdr));
 
 		cb_hdr->hdr.it_present = cpu_to_le32(
 				(1 << IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RATE) |
-- 
2.9.3

Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: linux_mon: Rearrange the code

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:27:51PM +0200, Tamara Diaconita wrote:
> Put a part of some lines in a new line to have less than 80 characters.
> 
> Fixed the checkpath.pl issue:
> CHECK: Line over 80 characters.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tamara Diaconita <diaconita.tamara@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/wilc1000/linux_mon.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

You have sent a lot of different patches for this driver over the past
few days, and I now have no idea what is, and what is not, a valid patch
:(

Can you please resend all of ythe patches I haven't applied yet, as a
patch series, properly linked together (i.e. reply-to is set), so that
they can be reviewed easily?

Remember, I have to deal with hundreds of patches, you want to make the
maintainers life _very_ easy to figure out what is, and is not, a valid
patch to apply.

thanks,

greg k-h