Re: [PATCH] staging: speakup: Fix warning of line over 80 characters.

Richard Weinberger
2015-03-28T21:23:04Z

Am 28.03.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Joe Perches:
> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:40 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Shirish Gajera <gshirishfree@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
>
> []
>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/speakup/main.c b/drivers/staging/speakup/main.c
> []
>>> @@ -423,7 +423,8 @@ static void announce_edge(struct vc_data *vc, int msg_id)
>>> if (spk_bleeps & 1)
>>> bleep(spk_y);
>>> if ((spk_bleeps & 2) && (msg_id < edge_quiet))
>>> - synth_printf("%s\n", spk_msg_get(MSG_EDGE_MSGS_START + msg_id - 1));
>>> + synth_printf("%s\n",
>>> + spk_msg_get(MSG_EDGE_MSGS_START + msg_id - 1));
>>
>> Instead of blindly adding newlines to silence checkpatch.pl, what
>> about reworking the code?
>> printf("%s\n", ..) cries for a puts().
>
> There is no synth_puts

So what?
Fix it! :-)

>>> @@ -1131,7 +1132,8 @@ static void spkup_write(const char *in_buf, int count)
>>> if (in_count > 2 && rep_count > 2) {
>>> if (last_type & CH_RPT) {
>>> synth_printf(" ");
>>> - synth_printf(spk_msg_get(MSG_REPEAT_DESC2), ++rep_count);
>>> + synth_printf(spk_msg_get(MSG_REPEAT_DESC2),
>>> + ++rep_count);
>>> synth_printf(" ");
>>
>> This printf stuff looks odd. synth_printf() seems to take a format
>> string, in this case the format string
>> is returned by spk_msg_get(), smells like a format string bug.
>
> Nope, but it would be nicer to avoid these spk_msg_get
> functions for the indices that are used with printf style
> formatting.
>
>>> }
>>> rep_count = 0;
>>> @@ -1847,7 +1849,8 @@ static void speakup_win_set(struct vc_data *vc)
>>> win_right = spk_x;
>>> }
>>> snprintf(info, sizeof(info), spk_msg_get(MSG_WINDOW_BOUNDARY),
>>> - (win_start) ? spk_msg_get(MSG_END) : spk_msg_get(MSG_START),
>>> + (win_start) ?
>>> + spk_msg_get(MSG_END) : spk_msg_get(MSG_START),
>>> (int)spk_y + 1, (int)spk_x + 1);
>>
>> Same here. Also please resolve the ?: mess.
>
> I don't think there's a ?: mess, but the code looks wrong.
>
> win_start ? MSG_END : MSG_START

Face it, the whole code is horrible and lines other 80 chars are the *least*
problem.
Submitting a patch just for the sake of silencing checkpatch.pl is a waste of time.
After applying this patch the driver 0 better than before.

Thanks,
//richard