Re: [PATCH] staging: vme_user: fix check blank lines not necessary

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 05:31:30PM -0300, Alexon Oliveira wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:17:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 04:33:11PM -0300, Alexon Oliveira wrote:
> > > Fixed all CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> > > and CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary before a close brace '}'
> > > as reported by checkpatch to adhere to the Linux kernel
> > > coding-style guidelines.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexon Oliveira <alexondunkan@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c | 5 -----
> > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c
> > > index 5eb0d780c77f..c7c50406c199 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c
> > > @@ -308,7 +308,6 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_slave_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,
> > >  		if (((slave_image->address_attr & address) == address) &&
> > >  		    ((slave_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) &&
> > >  		    (slave_image->locked == 0)) {
> > > -
> > >  			slave_image->locked = 1;
> > >  			mutex_unlock(&slave_image->mtx);
> > >  			allocated_image = slave_image;
> > > @@ -510,7 +509,6 @@ struct vme_resource *vme_master_request(struct vme_dev *vdev, u32 address,
> > >  		    ((master_image->cycle_attr & cycle) == cycle) &&
> > >  		    ((master_image->width_attr & dwidth) == dwidth) &&
> > >  		    (master_image->locked == 0)) {
> > > -
> > >  			master_image->locked = 1;
> > >  			spin_unlock(&master_image->lock);
> > >  			allocated_image = master_image;
> > > @@ -682,10 +680,8 @@ ssize_t vme_master_read(struct vme_resource *resource, void *buf, size_t count,
> > >  		count = length - offset;
> > >  
> > >  	return bridge->master_read(image, buf, count, offset);
> > > -
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(vme_master_read);
> > > -
> > 
> > This line needs to be there, checkpatch should not have complained about
> > it.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, ACK. It complained, as below:
> 
> CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> #311: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c:311:
> +		    (slave_image->locked == 0)) {
> +
> --
> CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> #513: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c:513:
> +		    (master_image->locked == 0)) {
> +
> --
> CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary before a close brace '}'
> #684: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c:684:
> +
> +}
> --
> CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary before a close brace '}'
> #686: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c:686:
> +
> +}
> --
> CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> #890: FILE: drivers/staging/vme_user/vme.c:890:
> +		    (dma_ctrlr->locked == 0)) {
> +
> --
> 
> Should I keep them then and forget this patch?

No, those are all valid warnings.  You removed a line that checkpatch
did not complain about, and should not be removed :(

thanks,

greg k-h