From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754876AbcJMPv0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:51:26 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:56839 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752771AbcJMPvR (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:51:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:57:52 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Mikhail Golubev , Joe Perches Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, forest@alittletooquiet.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] staging:vt6656:baseband.h: fix function definition argument without identifier name issue Message-ID: <20161013145752.GB20947@kroah.com> References: <1476359418-12842-1-git-send-email-golubev.mikhail@gmail.com> <20161013120602.GA13968@kroah.com> <20161013142345.GA17219@mike-ubuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161013142345.GA17219@mike-ubuntu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:23:45PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:06:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +0300, Mikhail Golubev wrote: > > > Function definitions arguments should also have an identifier name as reported by checkpatch.pl. > > > > Please wrap your changelog comments at 72 columns. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Golubev > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h | 20 ++++++++++---------- > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h > > > index 7cc1387..fe1c25c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.h > > > @@ -86,15 +86,15 @@ struct vnt_phy_field { > > > unsigned int vnt_get_frame_time(u8 preamble_type, u8 pkt_type, > > > unsigned int frame_length, u16 tx_rate); > > > > > > -void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *, u32 frame_length, > > > - u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *); > > > - > > > -void vnt_set_short_slot_time(struct vnt_private *); > > > -void vnt_set_vga_gain_offset(struct vnt_private *, u8); > > > -void vnt_set_antenna_mode(struct vnt_private *, u8); > > > -int vnt_vt3184_init(struct vnt_private *); > > > -void vnt_set_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *); > > > -void vnt_exit_deep_sleep(struct vnt_private *); > > > -void vnt_update_pre_ed_threshold(struct vnt_private *, int scanning); > > > +void vnt_get_phy_field(struct vnt_private *priv, u32 frame_length, > > > + u16 tx_rate, u8 pkt_type, struct vnt_phy_field *phy); > > > + > > > > Really? Since when is this a coding style requirement? > > > > This requirement is really new. It was proposed by Joe Perches at 26 Sep 2016: > [PATCH] checkpatch: Add warning for unnamed function definition. > > Should this type of warnings be fixed here? Ugh, Joe, why did you add this option? What is it going to help out with? thanks, greg k-h