| Message ID | 667b2ee6.050a0220.f9c1.5426@mx.google.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | staging: nvec: use x instead of x != NULL | expand |
On 6/25/24 22:56, Tom Mounet wrote: > Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch > > Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, > { > mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex); > > - if (msg != NULL) > + if (msg) > *msg = NULL; > > nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0]; > @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, > > dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n"); > > - if (msg != NULL) > + if (msg) > *msg = nvec->last_sync_msg; > else > nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg); Hi Tom, what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so lucky. Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be: Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code. or Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability. If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. Description from Dan under: https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/ Thanks Bye Philipp
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Philipp Hortmann wrote: > On 6/25/24 22:56, Tom Mounet wrote: > > Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, > > { > > mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex); > > - if (msg != NULL) > > + if (msg) > > *msg = NULL; > > nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0]; > > @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, > > dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n"); > > - if (msg != NULL) > > + if (msg) > > *msg = nvec->last_sync_msg; > > else > > nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg); > > > Hi Tom, > > what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so lucky. > Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. > Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be: > > Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code. > > or > > Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability. > > If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. > Description from Dan under: > https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/ How about adding "Issue identified by checkpatch"? Checkpatch helped find the problem, so it would be nice to acknowledge that. julia > > Thanks > > Bye Philipp > >
On 6/26/24 06:48, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Philipp Hortmann wrote: > >> On 6/25/24 22:56, Tom Mounet wrote: >>> Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c >>> index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c >>> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, >>> { >>> mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex); >>> - if (msg != NULL) >>> + if (msg) >>> *msg = NULL; >>> nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0]; >>> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, >>> dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n"); >>> - if (msg != NULL) >>> + if (msg) >>> *msg = nvec->last_sync_msg; >>> else >>> nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg); >> >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so lucky. >> Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. >> Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be: >> >> Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code. >> >> or >> >> Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability. >> >> If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. >> Description from Dan under: >> https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/ > > How about adding "Issue identified by checkpatch"? Checkpatch helped find > the problem, so it would be nice to acknowledge that. > > julia > Hi Julia, The following lines sound very authoritative. It is only my opinion and can be wrong. I think checkpatch is valued a lot because every patch send in is checked by checkpatch. checkpatch can be mentioned in the description. But the developer cannot hide at all behind a checkpatch warning/error message. The developer must take full responsibility for the patch. The developer needs to use common sense. Please have a look at this email from Greg: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/2024062443-udder-spotted-cc0d@gregkh/T/#m280ebb2be94e434234f405e722fc35dc6d1db710 I think that Greg once wrote that he does not care about the tool that found the issue. He much more cares about if the change makes sense. The "Why" in the description is most important for him. And the why cannot be because checkpatch or any other tool told the developer so. Thanks for your support. Bye Philipp
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Philipp Hortmann wrote: > On 6/26/24 06:48, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Philipp Hortmann wrote: > > > > > On 6/25/24 22:56, Tom Mounet wrote: > > > > Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > > > index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > > > @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, > > > > { > > > > mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex); > > > > - if (msg != NULL) > > > > + if (msg) > > > > *msg = NULL; > > > > nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0]; > > > > @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, > > > > dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n"); > > > > - if (msg != NULL) > > > > + if (msg) > > > > *msg = nvec->last_sync_msg; > > > > else > > > > nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg); > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so > > > lucky. > > > Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. > > > Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be: > > > > > > Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code. > > > > > > or > > > > > > Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability. > > > > > > If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. > > > Description from Dan under: > > > https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/ > > > > How about adding "Issue identified by checkpatch"? Checkpatch helped find > > the problem, so it would be nice to acknowledge that. > > > > julia > > > > Hi Julia, > > The following lines sound very authoritative. It is only my opinion and can be > wrong. > > I think checkpatch is valued a lot because every patch send in is checked by > checkpatch. checkpatch can be mentioned in the description. But the developer > cannot hide at all behind a checkpatch warning/error message. The developer > must take full responsibility for the patch. The developer needs to use common > sense. > > Please have a look at this email from Greg: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/2024062443-udder-spotted-cc0d@gregkh/T/#m280ebb2be94e434234f405e722fc35dc6d1db710 > > I think that Greg once wrote that he does not care about the tool that found > the issue. He much more cares about if the change makes sense. The "Why" in > the description is most important for him. And the why cannot be because > checkpatch or any other tool told the developer so. Of course. I was only suggesting to acknowledge the help of checkpatch in addition to one of the sentences that you proposed. julia > > Thanks for your support. > > Bye Philipp > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, { mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex); - if (msg != NULL) + if (msg) *msg = NULL; nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0]; @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n"); - if (msg != NULL) + if (msg) *msg = nvec->last_sync_msg; else nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);
Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)