On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 05:36:17 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote:
From: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org
In preparation for later splitting out some of the arch-dependent code from osl.c, clean up the errors reported by checkpatch.pl. They fell into these classes:
-- remove the FSF address from the GPL notice -- "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar" (and the ** variation of same) -- a return is not a function, so parentheses are not required.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org
checkpatch.pl is irrelevant here. You're trying to make the coding style be more consistent with the coding style of the rest of the kernel.
The warnings from checkpatch.pl are meaningless for the existing code, so it should not be used to justify changes in that code.
Of course, the same applies to patches [2-4/9].
Okay, I'm puzzled. In the last version of these patches, I asked if I should clean up osl.c as long as I was creating the new osi.c file. I understood the reply to mean it would also be good to correct osl.c [0] from checkpatch's point of view. I took that to mean errors (patch [1/9]) and warnings (patches [2-4/9]) -- so that's what I did. What did I misunderstand from that reply?
If these changes are objectionable, then I'll drop these from the next version of the patch set; I'm not hung up on insisting on either of the kernel's or ACPI's coding style -- I try to adapt as needed. I only did the patches because I thought it was helping out with some long-term maintenance type work.
[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/4/749