From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 22:31:12 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] staging: Fix spacing between function name and parentheses In-Reply-To: <4153.1413153252@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1412992548-32011-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> <20141011045803.GA3112@sudip-PC> <0AFEF293-AE38-4F6A-BC5E-68AA5D0CFCAB@gmail.com> <54393425.1040409@gmail.com> <20141011135239.GL10301@carfax.org.uk> <4153.1413153252@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <543B3970.6070705@gmail.com> To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org Valdis, I do understand your concern with me finding one of the few false positives, due to my issues already with the community. I am trying my best now to improve and work toward good,solid work that is of actual use to the community and avoid shitty patches and not listening like I did for the last few months. Sorry, Nick On 14-10-12 06:34 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:52:40 +0100, Hugo Mills said: > >> 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. > > Am I the only one suspicious of the fact that Nick found one of the > few false positives rather than one of the plentiful actual style > problems? >