[PATCH 0/2] atm: iphase: Fix misleading indention and return -ENOMEM on error

[PATCH 0/2] atm: iphase: Fix misleading indention and return -ENOMEM on error

[Tillmann Heidsieck]

OK here it goes ...

There are three non-indention specific smatch warnings in atm/iphase.c

drivers/atm/iphase.c:115 ia_enque_rtn_q() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
drivers/atm/iphase.c:148 ia_hack_tcq() warn: if();
drivers/atm/iphase.c:1178 rx_pkt() warn: curly braces intended?

this series fixes two of them. The if(); warning would require
restructuring the code to a larger extend. Beyond this there remains a
whooping number of > 2k checkpatch.pl warnings and errors each. Those
can be grouped into 

- Direct usage of printk()
- Style issues concerning operators
- Style issues concerning {}
- Indention with spaces, mixed tabs and spaces etc
- Trailing white-spaces

Generally I would not mind cleaning all this up for those who have to
make functional changes to the driver. However, I would like to know
from the maintainers if such an afford would be welcome or not.

Regards,
Tillmann Heidsieck


Tillmann Heidsieck (2):
  atm: iphase: return -ENOMEM instead of -1 in case of failed kmalloc()
  atm: iphase: fix misleading indention

 drivers/atm/iphase.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.6.1

[PATCH 1/2] atm: iphase: return -ENOMEM instead of -1 in case of failed kmalloc()

[Tillmann Heidsieck]

Smatch complains about returning hard coded error codes, silence this
warning.

drivers/atm/iphase.c:115 ia_enque_rtn_q() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy

Signed-off-by: Tillmann Heidsieck <theidsieck@leenox.de>
---
 drivers/atm/iphase.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/atm/iphase.c b/drivers/atm/iphase.c
index 65e65903faa0..d5010d7a99c3 100644
--- a/drivers/atm/iphase.c
+++ b/drivers/atm/iphase.c
@@ -112,7 +112,8 @@ static void ia_enque_head_rtn_q (IARTN_Q *que, IARTN_Q * data)
 
 static int ia_enque_rtn_q (IARTN_Q *que, struct desc_tbl_t data) {
    IARTN_Q *entry = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC);
-   if (!entry) return -1;
+   if (!entry)
+      return -ENOMEM;
    entry->data = data;
    entry->next = NULL;
    if (que->next == NULL) 
-- 
2.6.1

Re: [PATCH 1/2] atm: iphase: return -ENOMEM instead of -1 in case of failed kmalloc()

[David Miller]

From: Tillmann Heidsieck <theidsieck@leenox.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:47:18 +0200

> Smatch complains about returning hard coded error codes, silence this
> warning.
> 
> drivers/atm/iphase.c:115 ia_enque_rtn_q() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tillmann Heidsieck <theidsieck@leenox.de>

Applied to net-next.

[PATCH 2/2] atm: iphase: fix misleading indention

[Tillmann Heidsieck]

Fix a smatch warning:
drivers/atm/iphase.c:1178 rx_pkt() warn: curly braces intended?

The code is correct, the indention is misleading. In case the allocation
of skb fails, we want to skip to the end.

Signed-off-by: Tillmann Heidsieck <theidsieck@leenox.de>
---
 drivers/atm/iphase.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/atm/iphase.c b/drivers/atm/iphase.c
index d5010d7a99c3..7d00f2994738 100644
--- a/drivers/atm/iphase.c
+++ b/drivers/atm/iphase.c
@@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ static int rx_pkt(struct atm_dev *dev)
         if (!(skb = atm_alloc_charge(vcc, len, GFP_ATOMIC))) {
            if (vcc->vci < 32)
               printk("Drop control packets\n");
-	      goto out_free_desc;
+	   goto out_free_desc;
         }
 	skb_put(skb,len);  
         // pwang_test
-- 
2.6.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] atm: iphase: fix misleading indention

[David Miller]

From: Tillmann Heidsieck <theidsieck@leenox.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:47:19 +0200

> Fix a smatch warning:
> drivers/atm/iphase.c:1178 rx_pkt() warn: curly braces intended?
> 
> The code is correct, the indention is misleading. In case the allocation
> of skb fails, we want to skip to the end.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tillmann Heidsieck <theidsieck@leenox.de>

Applied to net-next.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] atm: iphase: Fix misleading indention and return -ENOMEM on error

[Charles (Chas) Williams]

On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 21:47 +0200, Tillmann Heidsieck wrote:
> this series fixes two of them. The if(); warning would require
> restructuring the code to a larger extend. Beyond this there remains a
> whooping number of > 2k checkpatch.pl warnings and errors each. Those
> can be grouped into 
...
> Generally I would not mind cleaning all this up for those who have to
> make functional changes to the driver. However, I would like to know
> from the maintainers if such an afford would be welcome or not.

It doesn't bother me if you do this.  I can review it.