From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755583AbcJMRBg (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:01:36 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36013 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752929AbcJMRB3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:01:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:49:27 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Joe Perches Cc: Mikhail Golubev , Andrew Morton , 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: <20161013164927.GA15120@kroah.com> References: <1476359418-12842-1-git-send-email-golubev.mikhail@gmail.com> <20161013120602.GA13968@kroah.com> <20161013142345.GA17219@mike-ubuntu> <20161013145752.GB20947@kroah.com> <1476376643.2164.14.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1476376643.2164.14.camel@perches.com> 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 09:37:23AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 16:57 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > 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. > [] > > > > > diff --git 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);p > > > > > > > > > > -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? > > 1. Most all kernel prototypes use named arguments. > 2. It helps make header files easier to read/lookup with grep. > > int func(int, int, int) > vs > int func(int weight, int density, int mass) > > which is easier for humans to use? Yes, which is why I use that format, but is it something we are now going to suddenly require? Also, this is going to take a lot more work to review patches like this, to match up the variable names to ensure that the developer got it right... thanks, greg k-h