From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:12:41 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/8] armv7: cache maintenance operations for armv7 In-Reply-To: <4D2EECA7.80301@ti.com> 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> <4D2EECA7.80301@ti.com> Message-ID: <4D2F3289.1090307@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 13/01/2011 13:14, Aneesh V a ?crit : > On Thursday 13 January 2011 12:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > >>>>> + 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? You're right. The issue appears when doing a "reply" with Thunderbird. Seems to me like a recent change in behavior, as I recall having replied to mails with this kind of spacing preserved. Sorry for the noise. Amicalement, -- Albert.