Re: [PATCH 5.15 060/123] gpiolib: improve coding style for local variables

Bartosz Golaszewski
2022-12-12T18:10:12Z

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:15 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:30:14PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 2:31 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit e5ab49cd3d6937b1818b80cb5eb09dc018ae0718 ]
> > >
> > > Drop unneeded whitespaces and put the variables of the same type
> > > together for consistency with the rest of the code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
> > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > Stable-dep-of: ec851b23084b ("gpiolib: fix memory leak in gpiochip_setup_dev()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 8 ++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > index 320baed949ee..a87c4cd94f7a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > @@ -594,11 +594,11 @@ int gpiochip_add_data_with_key(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data,
> > > struct lock_class_key *request_key)
> > > {
> > > struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = gc->parent ? dev_fwnode(gc->parent) : NULL;
> > > - unsigned long flags;
> > > - int ret = 0;
> > > - unsigned i;
> > > - int base = gc->base;
> > > struct gpio_device *gdev;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + int base = gc->base;
> > > + unsigned int i;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * First: allocate and populate the internal stat container, and
> > > --
> > > 2.35.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This isn't a fix, please drop it from stable.
>
> It's required for a follow-on fix in the series, based on the line:
>
> Stable-dep-of: ec851b23084b ("gpiolib: fix memory leak in gpiochip_setup_dev()")
>
> Do you want that one? If not, then we can drop them all.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Yes, we do want it. Go ahead then, thanks!

Bart