Re: [PATCH 0/3] move visorbus out of staging to drivers/virt/visorbus

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:52:27AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 17:39 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:33:49AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 16:53 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > I noticed that in drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorbus_main.c, you
> > > > > have 2 tabs for your 'struct attribute' variables, which is really odd.
> > > 
> > > []
> > > > Also, many of the attribute callbacks in that file seem to all have
> > > > their leading '{' in the wrong place.  Odd that checkpatch.pl doesn't
> > > > catch that...
> []
> > the following code in that file should be caught, right:
> > 
> > static ssize_t partition_handle_show(struct device *dev,
> >                                      struct device_attribute *attr,
> >                                      char *buf) {
> >         struct visor_device *vdev = to_visor_device(dev);
> >         u64 handle = visorchannel_get_clientpartition(vdev->visorchannel);
> > 
> >         return sprintf(buf, "0x%llx\n", handle);
> > }
> > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(partition_handle);
> 
> Not really.
> 
> > The initial { is in the wrong place...
> 
> True.
> 
> Please understand that checkpatch looks at patches one line
> at a time.  It's not very smart about function definitions
> or context.
> 
> checkpatch's function definition code is pretty limited.
> It can miss a lot of style misuses.
> 
> Single line function definitions brace tests work well.
> Multiple line function definitions do not.

Ok, that makes sense why this is missed.  No big deal, a simple visual
inspection shows stuff like this up really easily, which obviously no
one did yet on this file :)

thanks,

greg k-h