From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ACC2328251; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:53:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.15 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764161619; cv=none; b=As964p1jP0HA4TJbV7bUZo0LSLFFvYMAxrpf7oGiWgmc5UiLFmFXNFERwPjGiMuJjMCK99ZMBR6wUWgqcnWL4j16sYVIelyZOcO6d4yOExWExwJwNFM3tNkavTMLA3UMfSGi1hX35nhG4SCEfpXF+ng825PZf4dsVfzjZAyEqC4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764161619; c=relaxed/simple; bh=F4sTffPx4FZ+9fP61VYlGETvM6sNED/nDu6cMxH1+l8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mOkQRr0RLegBcKPTqVcdolf+hgeFohc0EmVEndPLOZKtfIlYWGyeKTLXTTQUqNlh3Xc9dJXToZ7CmWM+xoeQAUej4MuyBQ/gtGxxCH4xIO/C3c3zYDyffeOlzrCTjI3HYUeh6CIVfOhltoSPYRalZN5ZYu4Wa/lpX80jiEZZWeE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=EPAE3gOB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="EPAE3gOB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1764161618; x=1795697618; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=F4sTffPx4FZ+9fP61VYlGETvM6sNED/nDu6cMxH1+l8=; b=EPAE3gOBmCBrU/ioPZwydOtZja3xEHR3VDHcHn14FIA4lRYzX08dszoe jXa85rISMoJ/afZ8gpNagdDUkKV0R0ryNA9mP/c7jLl7QNEY01GkiLldt a1rnmbtsBTORd+SOL+1Hp3ni8QnASl5slS/+iSAJ2ARibZp+oBw7vjGOt /IwodGc3Y31P+yGy/430nicczPkmfewHf75sUHrcedHlgQcxriJ66jvKa MjwNJbvmgzCkR0e5UEMxhwkcLY1Xnv4iKseWPkk+1ESBCQb7gm3K2qlPv 5npyT6x4X4QYn3ZnGH5GmOd3cI7xYgw5k4ozz98p8grYlDkoZb5ZfnWuV g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: b+RJHb3YSse+qTCzFL7rnQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: NLRu/G4NSaW8oSEO3sDjIQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11624"; a="69818265" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.20,228,1758610800"; d="scan'208";a="69818265" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa107.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Nov 2025 04:53:38 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: TC1fAwrmRCaPFMqqrzm5/w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: qk0kWylLTVis/1uB/n8Nxw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.20,228,1758610800"; d="scan'208";a="198043334" Received: from black.igk.intel.com ([10.91.253.5]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2025 04:53:36 -0800 Received: by black.igk.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 8EB21A0; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:53:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:53:34 +0100 From: Andy Shevchenko To: "jempty.liang" Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jirislaby@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: 8250-of: Fix style issues in 8250_of.c Message-ID: References: <20251117034117.55588-1-imntjempty@163.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251117034117.55588-1-imntjempty@163.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:41:17AM +0000, jempty.liang wrote: > This patch resolves the warning "sizeof *port should be sizeof(*port)" > detected by checkpatch.pl. If you are going to submit more patches like this or related to sizeof, it would be worth to mention that while sizeof is an operator, the coding style recommends to use parentheses (but I haven't double checked this, feel free to find it in the Coding Style documentation). > - memset(port, 0, sizeof *port); > + memset(port, 0, sizeof(*port)); >From C perspective the original one is okay. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko