On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 17:49 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
Hi Alessandro.
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/005105.htmlhttp://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/005106.html
When you get feedback about style changes in your patch submission,
you should see if the feedback applies to more than just a single
instance in your patch.
These unnecessary line continuations are many.
Please remove them.
here.
here, etc.
@@ -2075,12 +2078,9 @@ int hfa384x_drvr_flashdl_write(hfa384x_t *hw, u32 daddr, void *buf, u32 len)
Try not to be slavish in simply fixing the checkpatch
errors. The goal isn't just to keep the silly tool quiet
but to make code readable and maintainable while making it
reasonably conforming to the predominant kernel coding
styles.
This code could be simplified and made much more readable
by using a temporary for (j * HFA384x_USB_RWMEM_MAXLEN)
Something like:
for (j = 0; j < nwrites; j++) {
int pos = j * HFA384x_USB_RWMEM_MAXLEN;
writebuf = buf + (i * hw->bufinfo.len) + pos;
writepage = HFA384x_ADDR_CMD_MKPAGE(dlbufaddr + pos);
writeoffset = HFA384x_ADDR_CMD_MKOFF(dlbufaddr + pos);
writelen = burnlen - jmax;
If you're going to convert something like this
perhaps a better style would be:
/*
* Figure out how big the frame is
* The status, time and data_len fields are in host order
*/
If you're breaking comments up like this, use some taste.
Don't necessarily fill all comments to the maximum line length.
/*
* Copy the 80211.11 header to the skb
* (ctl frames may be less than a full header)
*/
cheers, Joe
--