From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753124AbbCXOQr (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:16:47 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0127.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.127]:47634 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752946AbbCXOQm (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:16:42 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3872:4250:4321:5007:6261:8603:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: pain85_57158356e2640 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1479 Message-ID: <1427206596.5642.22.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Fixed 80 char & indent warnings From: Joe Perches To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Ragavendra Nagraj , micky_ching@realsil.com.cn, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, roxanagabriela10@gmail.com, lambert.quentin@gmail.com, vatikaharlalka@gmail.com, robert.r.kmiec@gmail.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:16:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20150324080041.GN10964@mwanda> References: <20150324062422.GA11025@localhost.localdomain> <20150324080041.GN10964@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 11:00 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > None of these are correct. :( True. Please run your proposed patches through checkpatch before sending them. I think it would be an improvement to rework the flow-hiding TRACE_RET and TRACE_GOTO macros into two separate lines. It would also reduce the code size quite a bit if the TRACE portion of TRACE_RET/TRACE_GOTO was a separate function and not an inline.