[PATCH] Staging: ccree: ssi_aead.h: Fixed a pointer declaration error.

[PATCH] Staging: ccree: ssi_aead.h: Fixed a pointer declaration error.

[srishti sharma]

Fixed a pointer declaration error , the dereferencing operator was misplaced.

Signed-off-by: srishti sharma <srishtishar@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_aead.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_aead.h b/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_aead.h
index 654a181..9cf5225 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_aead.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_aead.h
@@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ struct aead_req_ctx {
	struct ssi_mlli assoc;
	struct ssi_mlli src;
	struct ssi_mlli dst;
-	struct scatterlist* srcSgl;
-	struct scatterlist* dstSgl;
+	struct scatterlist *srcSgl;
+	struct scatterlist *dstSgl;
	unsigned int srcOffset;
	unsigned int dstOffset;
	enum ssi_req_dma_buf_type assoc_buff_type;
--
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: ssi_aead.h: Fixed a pointer declaration error.

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 04:15:17AM +0530, srishti sharma wrote:
> Fixed a pointer declaration error , the dereferencing operator was misplaced.

Odd use of a ,

Also, I don't understand what was "misplaced" here?  There does not seem
to be a "error" fixed here...

Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: ssi_aead.h: Fixed a pointer declaration error.

[srishti sharma]

Hey,

checkpatch.pl generated two errors , because the dereferencing
operator was placed next to the structure name instead of being placed
with the pointer .

for eg:
  struct scatterlist* srcSgl; (this was giving an error)

whereas
 struct scatterlist *srcSgl; (this did not give an error)


Both of them will compile , but the second one is a better
representation of it and does not produce an error on running
checkpatch.pl .

Regards,
Srishti

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 04:15:17AM +0530, srishti sharma wrote:
>> Fixed a pointer declaration error , the dereferencing operator was misplaced.
>
> Odd use of a ,
>
> Also, I don't understand what was "misplaced" here?  There does not seem
> to be a "error" fixed here...
>