[PATCH] staging: Fix spacing between function name and parentheses

[xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)]

Great to known. Sorry about not reading the code, will check more carefully
before I fix it.
Regards Nick 

On 14-10-11 11:25 AM, karthik nayak wrote:
> Hey Nick,
> Nice try to fix a checkpatch warning. But do read what you're changing.
> Yes your format is right. If you haven't already, take a look at "git
> send-email" .
> Have fun hacking :D
> Regards,
> Karthik Nayak
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:47 PM, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Hugo,
>> Sorry about that. On the other hand was the patch good in terms of format?
>> Cheers Nick
>>
>> On 14-10-11 09:52 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0400, nick wrote:
>>>> Thank you for your help, I'll study the code and see what I can do
>>>> about it. Do you have any suggestions of how to fix this checkpatch
>>>> warning?
>>>
>>>    Ignore it. The checker has clearly triggered on a false positive --
>>> this is not a function call, and should not be held to that standard.
>>> (Take a look at where the macro is actually used, to see what's going
>>> on here). Move on to find something more interesting to fix.
>>>
>>>    Hugo.
>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> On 14-10-11 05:53 AM, Kristofer Hallin wrote:
>>>>> Even if you use checkpath you _should_ understand what you are changing.
>>>>> The output of checkpatch merely there to help.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case you can see that this is a macro just a few lines up in the
>>>>> code.
>>>>> On 11 Oct 2014 11:46, "Sudip Mukherjee" <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. But in my opinion checkpatch is here to help us fix style
>>>>>> problems , but we should not blindly act on checkpatch warnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin
>>>>>> <peter.senna@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think that, in this case, checkpatch.pl contributed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>> WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '('
>>>>>>> #415: FILE: drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c:415:
>>>>>>> +                       if (c.s.field op (value)) {
>>>>>>    \
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Agreed - that is why I mentioned the patch is neither right nor useful:)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -daveti
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <
>>>>>> sudipm.mukherjee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>>>> It will work. But my point of saying that was  c.s.field ==(value) is
>>>>>>>>> again not according to the style.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Dave Tian <dave.jing.tian@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It also works as value is surrounded by (), though I do not think the
>>>>>> patch itself is right or useful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tian
>>>>>>>>>> dave.jing.tian at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Sudip Mukherjee <
>>>>>> sudipm.mukherjee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:55:48PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes checkpatch coding style warning about unneeded space
>>>>>>>>>>>> between function name an parentheses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> Untested
>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 5f9db4c..bbeb0cc 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ struct octeon_hcd {
>>>>>>>>>>>>             type c;
>>>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>>>             while (1) {
>>>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>>>                     c.u32 = __cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address);
>>>>>>     \
>>>>>>>>>>>> -                    if (c.s.field op (value)) {
>>>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>>> +                    if (c.s.field op(value)) {
>>>>>>       \
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> have you read the code before modifying it?
>>>>>>>>>>> this is not a function.
>>>>>>>>>>> have you seen how CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 is being called?
>>>>>>>>>>> on every call of CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 op is the operator "=="
>>>>>>>>>>> so when called the macro will be c.s.field == (value).
>>>>>>>>>>> if your patch is applied then it will become c.s.field ==(value) ..
>>>>>> will that be correct ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> sudip
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                             result = 0;
>>>>>>      \
>>>>>>>>>>>>                             break;
>>>>>>     \
>>>>>>>>>>>>                     } else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) {
>>>>>>      \
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies