From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752690AbdC0MGu (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:06:50 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36724 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751751AbdC0MGn (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:06:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:06:28 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Anar Adilova Cc: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: fbtft: Fix checkpatch warning Message-ID: <20170327120628.GA1249@kroah.com> References: <20170324090244.mit7ciqsq6t2z35r@anar-Lenovo-Z50-70> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170324090244.mit7ciqsq6t2z35r@anar-Lenovo-Z50-70> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 03:02:45PM +0600, Anar Adilova wrote: > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning: > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its function/variable. > > The EXPORT_SYMBOL statements are placed inside if blocks, after both function implementations. > Please always wrap your changelog text at 72 columns. > Signed-off-by: Anar Adilova > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > index b742ee7..d2e3e8d 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c > @@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ void fbtft_unregister_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) > par->info->bl_dev = NULL; > } > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_unregister_backlight); > > static const struct backlight_ops fbtft_bl_ops = { > .get_brightness = fbtft_backlight_get_brightness, > @@ -321,12 +322,13 @@ void fbtft_register_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) > if (!par->fbtftops.unregister_backlight) > par->fbtftops.unregister_backlight = fbtft_unregister_backlight; > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_register_backlight); > #else > void fbtft_register_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) { }; > -void fbtft_unregister_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) { }; > -#endif > EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_register_backlight); > +void fbtft_unregister_backlight(struct fbtft_par *par) { }; > EXPORT_SYMBOL(fbtft_unregister_backlight); > +#endif No, the original code here is "nicer" in that you don't have duplicate declarations like your change added. You can ignore the checkpatch warning here. thanks, greg k-h