[PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[Simon Quigley]

checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833

Fixed by splitting up into multiple lines, no build errors afterwards

Signed-off-by: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@ubuntu.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/backref.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
index f6dac40..d097777 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
@@ -1830,7 +1830,11 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum, struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
 	unsigned long ptr;
 
 	while (1) {
-		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path, &extref,
+		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root,
+						inum,
+						offset,
+						path,
+						&extref,
 					    &offset);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			break;
-- 
2.7.0

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 12:17 -0600, Simon Quigley wrote:
> checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833
[]
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
[]
> @@ -1830,7 +1830,11 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum, struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
>  	unsigned long ptr;
>  
>  	while (1) {
> -		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path, &extref,
> +		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root,
> +						inum,
> +						offset,
> +						path,
> +						&extref,
>  					    &offset);

I think this is poor because all the arguments aren't aligned.

It'd be nicer like:

		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path,
					    &extref, &offset);

[PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80

[Simon Quigley]

checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833

Adjusted to put &extref and &offset on a different line

Signed-off-by: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@ubuntu.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/backref.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
index f6dac40..956fffa 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
@@ -1830,8 +1830,8 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum, struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
 	unsigned long ptr;
 
 	while (1) {
-		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path, &extref,
-					    &offset);
+		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path,
+							&extref, &offset);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			break;
 		if (ret) {
-- 
2.7.0

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80

[Simon Quigley]

Better?

On 02/20/2016 06:56 PM, Simon Quigley wrote:
> checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833
>
> Adjusted to put &extref and &offset on a different line
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@ubuntu.com>
> ---
>   fs/btrfs/backref.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> index f6dac40..956fffa 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> @@ -1830,8 +1830,8 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum, struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
>   	unsigned long ptr;
>
>   	while (1) {
> -		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path, &extref,
> -					    &offset);
> +		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path,
> +							&extref, &offset);
>   		if (ret < 0)
>   			break;
>   		if (ret) {
>

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 18:57 -0600, Simon Quigley wrote:
> Better?

No, not really.

The alignment should be to the open parenthesis
as I wrote in the first reply.

> On 02/20/2016 06:56 PM, Simon Quigley wrote:
> > checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833
> > 
> > Adjusted to put &extref and &offset on a different line
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@ubuntu.com>
> > ---
> >   fs/btrfs/backref.c | 4 ++--
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> > index f6dac40..956fffa 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> > @@ -1830,8 +1830,8 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum,
> > struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
> >   	unsigned long ptr;
> > 
> >   	while (1) {
> > -		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset,
> > path, &extref,
> > -					    &offset);
> > +		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset,
> > path,
> > +							&extref,
> > &offset);
> >   		if (ret < 0)
> >   			break;
> >   		if (ret) {
> > 

[PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[Simon Quigley]

checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833

Adjusted to put &extref and &offset on a different line

Signed-off-by: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@ubuntu.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/backref.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
index f6dac40..81b0863 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
@@ -1830,8 +1830,8 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum, struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
 	unsigned long ptr;
 
 	while (1) {
-		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path, &extref,
-					    &offset);
+		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path,
+					    &extref, &offset);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			break;
 		if (ret) {
-- 
2.7.0

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[Simon Quigley]

I apologize, I had my text editor set to a 4 space tab instead of 8 so I 
couldn't see this clearly. That's fixed now, and it won't happen again. 
Is this what you wanted? It seems to line up exactly like you proposed.

On 02/20/2016 08:06 PM, Simon Quigley wrote:
> checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833
>
> Adjusted to put &extref and &offset on a different line
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@ubuntu.com>
> ---
>   fs/btrfs/backref.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> index f6dac40..81b0863 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> @@ -1830,8 +1830,8 @@ static int iterate_inode_extrefs(u64 inum, struct btrfs_root *fs_root,
>   	unsigned long ptr;
>
>   	while (1) {
> -		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path, &extref,
> -					    &offset);
> +		ret = btrfs_find_one_extref(fs_root, inum, offset, path,
> +					    &extref, &offset);
>   		if (ret < 0)
>   			break;
>   		if (ret) {
>

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[David Sterba]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:17:38PM -0600, Simon Quigley wrote:
> checkpatch.pl reported a warning of over 80 characters on line 1833

Please read the answers from Filipe or me

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/53421
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/53422

in short, whitespace-only changes do not help too much.

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[Simon Quigley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 344 bytes --]

> in short, whitespace-only changes do not help too much.

But they are encouraged for people who would like to get started with kernel programming, Linus
himself says so. In the future I plan on giving more, but I wanted to get familiarized with the
process. So I still think this should be accepted although it's just a whitespace change.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[David Sterba]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:10:56AM -0600, Simon Quigley wrote:
> > in short, whitespace-only changes do not help too much.
> 
> But they are encouraged for people who would like to get started with kernel programming, Linus
> himself says so. In the future I plan on giving more, but I wanted to get familiarized with the
> process. So I still think this should be accepted although it's just a whitespace change.

But you are getting familiarized, you sent a patch, got feedback, defend
your patches.  That's a great start, but it does not mean that the
patches end up merged. The decision is up to the maintainer(s) of the
subsystem.

Nobody will bite your head off if you do some trivial formal mistakes in
your first patch submissions. The mistakes will be pointed out, you will
be asked to resend.  Sometimes, when the mistakes or formalities are not
worth the email roundtrip, the maintainers fix it at commit time.

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: backref: Fixed checkpatch warning of over 80 characters

[Simon Quigley]

> But you are getting familiarized, you sent a patch, got feedback, defend
> your patches.  That's a great start, but it does not mean that the
> patches end up merged. The decision is up to the maintainer(s) of the
> subsystem.
> 
> Nobody will bite your head off if you do some trivial formal mistakes in
> your first patch submissions. The mistakes will be pointed out, you will
> be asked to resend.  Sometimes, when the mistakes or formalities are not
> worth the email roundtrip, the maintainers fix it at commit time.

So let's wait for a response from Chris. :)