From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:44:31 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/8] armv7: cache maintenance operations for
	armv7
In-Reply-To: <4D2DFE77.8000104@free.fr>
References: <1293018898-13253-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>	<1293018898-13253-3-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>	<4D2805FC.7070200@free.fr>
	<4D28373D.4000505@ti.com> <4D2DFE77.8000104@free.fr>
Message-ID: <4D2EECA7.80301@ti.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thursday 13 January 2011 12:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
<snip ..>

>>>> + for (way = num_ways - 1; way>= 0 ; way--)
>>>> + for (set = num_sets - 1; set>= 0; set--) {
>>>
>>> Please fix whitespacing around operators. The best way to ''catch'em
>>> all'' is to run Linux' checkpatch.pl (I do this with option --no-tree)
>>> on all patches that you submit to u-boot and, fix all warning and errors
>>> and if some are left that you think should not be fixed, mention them
>>> and explain why they're wrongly emitted.
>>
>> I religiously do checkpatch whenever I send out a patch. Please note
>> that my original mail seems to be fine. I saved it and ran checkpatch
>> again. No errors, no warnings! Something amiss?
>
> Well, something like "set>= 0" is quite surprising as it has
> inconsistent spacing around a binary operators. But you're right,
> checkpatch does not detect it. Can you fix them manually?

Checkpatch does find such issues. I was trying to say that my original
mail doesn't have any spacing issues. The problem seems to have
appeared in your reply. Is your mail client doing something funny?

>
>> Best regards,
>> Aneesh
>
> Amicalement,