From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/14] bfa: Brocade BFA FC SCSI driver (bfa1) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:28:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1253831331.5183.264.camel@mulgrave.site> References: <200909240049.n8O0nw3l013437@swe58.brocade.com> <1253807042.20648.188.camel@desktop> <1253814934.20648.262.camel@desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:55463 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751377AbZIXW2x (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:28:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jing Huang Cc: Daniel Walker , Krishna Gudipati , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , Ramkumar Vadivelu , Vinodh Ravindran On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 11:08 -0700, Jing Huang wrote: > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > I did run checkpatch.pl and it didn't report any ERROR or WARNING. Do > > you use any specific flags? > > > > No nothing special .. I run it in the following way, > > > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl this-is-the-test.patch > > > > or > > > > cat this-is-the-test.patch | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl - > > > > how did you run it? Usually it will report something like the following > > if it finds nothing, > > > > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, XXX lines checked > > > > Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. > > > > > > > > Daniel > > Thanks. I found the problem. I tried the latest checkpatch in 2.6.31 > and it generates a lot of ERRORs about putting parentheses for return. > I have been using an older version of checkpatch for patch submission > all the time, and therefore I didn't see any problem. I will fix them > and resubmit the patch. Actually, could you send an incremental diff ... I'll put this in the tree because it's about time it got wider testing in linux-next. James