[PATCH] proc: Fix four errors in kmsg.c

[PATCH] proc: Fix four errors in kmsg.c

[huzhi001]

The following checkpatch errors are removed:
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"

Signed-off-by: ZhiHu <huzhi001@208suo.com>
---
  fs/proc/kmsg.c | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/kmsg.c b/fs/proc/kmsg.c
index 2fc92a13f9f8..64025da60e2a 100644
--- a/fs/proc/kmsg.c
+++ b/fs/proc/kmsg.c
@@ -17,12 +17,12 @@

  #include <asm/io.h>

-static int kmsg_open(struct inode * inode, struct file * file)
+static int kmsg_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
  {
      return do_syslog(SYSLOG_ACTION_OPEN, NULL, 0, SYSLOG_FROM_PROC);
  }

-static int kmsg_release(struct inode * inode, struct file * file)
+static int kmsg_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
  {
      (void) do_syslog(SYSLOG_ACTION_CLOSE, NULL, 0, SYSLOG_FROM_PROC);
      return 0;

Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix four errors in kmsg.c

[Petr Mladek]

On Fri 2023-07-14 14:57:59, huzhi001@208suo.com wrote:
> The following checkpatch errors are removed:
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"

Please, do not do fix these cosmetic issues reported by checkpatch.pl.
It is not worth the effort. In fact, it is contra productive.
It complicates the git history, backports.

I suggest to find an area in the kernel which might be interesting
for you (any driver or subsystem, ...) and try to fix a real bug
there or implement a real feature.

You might start with reading the related discussions on lkml or
related mailing list, reviewing or testing patches, ...

Best Regards,
Petr

Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix four errors in kmsg.c

[Petr Mladek]

On Fri 2023-07-14 10:22:48, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2023-07-14 14:57:59, huzhi001@208suo.com wrote:
> > The following checkpatch errors are removed:
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> 
> Please, do not do fix these cosmetic issues reported by checkpatch.pl.
> It is not worth the effort. In fact, it is contra productive.
> It complicates the git history, backports.

BTW, Did anyone suggest you to fix errors/warnings reported by
checkpatch.pl?

You seem to be 2nd person who sent similar patch from @suo.com
within the last week. The first patch was rejected as well,
see
https://lore.kernel.org/all/f2d8eb955890bc1db1b307db713d4a4a@208suo.com/

You might want to tell this person that there are better ways
how to get involved into the kernel development.

Best Regards,
Petr

Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix four errors in kmsg.c

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (23/07/14 10:22), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2023-07-14 14:57:59, huzhi001@208suo.com wrote:
> > The following checkpatch errors are removed:
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> > ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> 
> Please, do not do fix these cosmetic issues reported by checkpatch.pl.
> It is not worth the effort. In fact, it is contra productive.
> It complicates the git history, backports.

Absolutely agree with Petr.

As a side note, I wonder if checkpatch can deprecate that -f option?

Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix four errors in kmsg.c

[Randy Dunlap]

On 7/16/23 23:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (23/07/14 10:22), Petr Mladek wrote:
>> On Fri 2023-07-14 14:57:59, huzhi001@208suo.com wrote:
>>> The following checkpatch errors are removed:
>>> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
>>> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
>>> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
>>> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
>>
>> Please, do not do fix these cosmetic issues reported by checkpatch.pl.
>> It is not worth the effort. In fact, it is contra productive.
>> It complicates the git history, backports.
> 
> Absolutely agree with Petr.
> 
> As a side note, I wonder if checkpatch can deprecate that -f option?

Either that or document in very strong language that it should only be used
in very special circumstances, usually by the file owner or maintainer.

-- 
~Randy