On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 11:27 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:17:03PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_softmac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_softmac.c
> > @@ -1690,7 +1690,8 @@ ieee80211_rx_auth_rq(struct ieee80211_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >  	//IEEE80211DMESG("Rx probe");
> >  	ieee->softmac_stats.rx_auth_rq++;
> >  
> > -	if ((status = auth_rq_parse(skb, dest))!= -1){
> > +	status = auth_rq_parse(skb, dest);
> > +	if (status!= -1) {
> 
> And again.  Did you do this with some tool and not by hand?
[]
quoted text
> Did you not run your patch through checkpatch after creating it and 
> before sending it to me?

quoted text
>From the original 0/13 introduction:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/25/6

        Used scripts/cvt_kernel.style.pl:
        --convert-hoist_assigns_from_if
        and verified visually.
        
        checkpatch errors ignored

The script itself is:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/24/447

quoted text
>From an earlier Greg KH email:

quoted text
> Careful that you don't add new coding style issues to a staging driver

Avoiding checkpatch errors and avoiding new coding style issues
are frequently conflicting goals.

I try not to add "new" issues. and I generally
leave the old ones alone.

I don't use checkpatch as a guide for what to fix
or as an inhibitor on what style patch to send.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/