This series fixes some of the checkpatch.pl checks highlighted in greybus.
Changes in v4: - As per the suggestions of Greg K.H., I am removing two patches that added comments to mutex declarations, since it is hard to verify them, without extensive analysis and documentation. - The patches were sent out-of-order previously, so will try sending them all together this time.
Changes in v3: - Added cover letter detailing changes made in subsequent versions of patch-sets. - v2 patch-set was only emailed to maintainers. The email was forwarded to the lists, but this rendered the patch-set corrupted. v3 hopes to correct this.
Changes in v2: - Split patch 1 into two individual patches 1/4 and 2/4 to keep logical changes separate.
Rachit Dhar (2): staging: greybus: fixed styling issue in fw-management.c staging: greybus: resolved checkpatch checks for light.c
drivers/staging/greybus/fw-management.c | 3 ++- drivers/staging/greybus/light.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Fixed a styling issue highlighted by checkpatch.pl, that was occurring due to improper alignment of function parameters.
CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis + ret = fw_mgmt_load_and_validate_operation(fw_mgmt, + intf_load.load_method, intf_load.firmware_tag);
Signed-off-by: Rachit Dhar rchtdhr@gmail.com --- drivers/staging/greybus/fw-management.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-management.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-management.c index 5d01da6b6eb9..e20e9136c106 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-management.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/fw-management.c @@ -434,7 +434,8 @@ static int fw_mgmt_ioctl(struct fw_mgmt *fw_mgmt, unsigned int cmd, return -EFAULT;
ret = fw_mgmt_load_and_validate_operation(fw_mgmt, - intf_load.load_method, intf_load.firmware_tag); + intf_load.load_method, + intf_load.firmware_tag); if (ret) return ret;
Added comments to mutex declarations, to resolve the associated checkpatch.pl checks:
CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment + struct mutex lock;
CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment + struct mutex lights_lock;
Signed-off-by: Rachit Dhar rchtdhr@gmail.com --- drivers/staging/greybus/light.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/light.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/light.c index cab02b5da867..1391c2b5d5f4 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/light.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/light.c @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ struct gb_channel { bool releasing; bool strobe_state; bool active; - struct mutex lock; + struct mutex lock; /* protects gb_channel->active */ };
struct gb_light { @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ struct gb_lights { struct gb_connection *connection; u8 lights_count; struct gb_light *lights; - struct mutex lights_lock; + struct mutex lights_lock; /* protects gb_lights->lights */ };
static void gb_lights_channel_free(struct gb_channel *channel);
On Sat, Mar 07, 2026 at 02:09:25PM +0000, Rachit Dhar wrote:
Added comments to mutex declarations, to resolve the associated checkpatch.pl checks:
CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment
struct mutex lock;CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment
struct mutex lights_lock;Signed-off-by: Rachit Dhar rchtdhr@gmail.com
These kinds of things require more than a two word explanation. It should probably be a paragraph. But first do a proper review of the locking. When do we start needing to worry about concurrent accesses? How is it accessed? What would happen if the locking were not there? Is the unregister sequence correct?
regards, dan carpenter
On Sat, Mar 07, 2026 at 02:09:25PM +0000, Rachit Dhar wrote:
Added comments to mutex declarations, to resolve the associated checkpatch.pl checks:
CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment
struct mutex lock;CHECK: struct mutex definition without comment
struct mutex lights_lock;Signed-off-by: Rachit Dhar rchtdhr@gmail.com
This is a v4 so there should be a explanation of what changed since v3.
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/
regards, dan carpenter
On Sat, Mar 07, 2026 at 02:09:23PM +0000, Rachit Dhar wrote:
This series fixes some of the checkpatch.pl checks highlighted in greybus.
Changes in v4:
- As per the suggestions of Greg K.H., I am removing two patches
that added comments to mutex declarations, since it is hard to verify them, without extensive analysis and documentation.
You still sent a patch that did this, as patch 2/2 :(
-
Dan Carpenter -
Greg Kroah-Hartman -
Rachit Dhar