From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=E9meth_M=E1rton?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] 8139too: clean up spaces and TABs Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:50:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4854C9BF.8040900@freemail.hu> References: <4853BB62.1060109@freemail.hu> <4853C8AD.9020407@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <48541165.7050304@freemail.hu> <485421C1.8010102@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Trivial Patch Monkey , LKML To: Stefan Richter , David Newall Return-path: Received: from mail01d.mail.t-online.hu ([84.2.42.6]:53334 "EHLO mail01d.mail.t-online.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755940AbYFOHu2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:50:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <485421C1.8010102@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Stefan Richter wrote: > N=E9meth M=E1rton wrote: >> From: M=E1rton N=E9meth >> >> Clean up the following errors and warnings reported by checkpatch.pl= : >=20 > Is 8139too in active development or are there people actively fixing=20 > current bugs in it? If not, a whitespace cleanup may be considered a= =20 > waste of time. There are even a few valid arguments that such change= s=20 > are harmful then. >=20 >> - space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis '(' >> - space required before the open brace '{' >> - code indent should use tabs where possible >> - line over 80 characters >> - spaces required around that '=3D' (ctx:VxW) >=20 > Did you check that your whitespace changes are indeed only whitespace= =20 > changes, i.e. that resulting assembler is unchanged? If you checked = it,=20 > it's worth mentioning in the submission. Yes, I checked this. When I compared the "objdump -d" output I found th= at only the function calls are changed where the __LINE__ is a parameter. Sorry about taking your time. My intention was to make the 8139too sour= ce code better as I am using this driver actively to communicate with the digital world. I have chosen the checkpatch.pl's output to compare the whether the old and the new code are better or not. Maybe that was a mi= stake. I would like to try it again, but in a different way. I collected here the different problems reported by checkpatch.pl. I divided it to two groups according to your comments which I think it worth to deal with: + ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis + WARNING: __func__ should be used instead of gcc specific __FUNCTION_= _ + WARNING: plain inline is preferred over __inline__ + WARNING: Use #include instead of + WARNING: Use #include instead of and the second group which it seems that may hurt somebody: - ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible - ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV) - ERROR: space required before the open brace '{' - ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '(' - ERROR: spaces required around that '=3D' (ctx:VxW) - ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line - WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks - WARNING: do not add new typedefs - WARNING: line over 80 characters - WARNING: space prohibited between function name and open parenthesis= '(' This is a much smaller set of changes. What do you think? Regards, M=E1rton N=E9meth