From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751422AbaEWWyu (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2014 18:54:50 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:25933 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154AbaEWWyt (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2014 18:54:49 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 01:54:24 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Chaitanya Hazarey Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, christoph.kohl@t-online.de, michael.hoefler@studium.uni-erlangen.de, rupert@rmuch.net, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: Silicom: Bypasslib: Fixed a couple of checkpatch.pl warnings Message-ID: <20140523225424.GT15585@mwanda> References: <1400881183-23889-1-git-send-email-c@24.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1400881183-23889-1-git-send-email-c@24.io> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:39:43PM -0700, Chaitanya Hazarey wrote: > Added a blank line after declarations to fix the following warnings issued by checkpatch.pl: > > drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c:138: WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations > drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c:189: WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations > > Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Hazarey Still doesn't apply, I'm afraid. > --- > drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c b/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c > index a58251f..8e714a8 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/silicom/bypasslib/bypass.c > @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ static int doit(int cmd, int if_index, int *data) > static int is_dev_sd(int if_index) > { > int ret = 0; > + > SET_BPLIB_INT_FN(is_bypass, int, if_index, ret); > return ret >= 0 ? 1 : 0; > } > @@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ static int is_bypass_dev(int if_index) > static int is_bypass(int if_index) > { > int ret = 0; > + > SET_BPLIB_INT_FN(is_bypass, int, if_index, ret); > if (ret < 0) There was supposed to be a blank line between the call to SET_BPLIB_INT_FN() and the return check and it got deleted for some reason. regards, dan carpetner