[stgt] [PATCH 0/4] style improvement patches for few source files
FUJITA Tomonori
fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp
Thu Aug 9 18:35:29 CEST 2012
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:03:20 +0300
nezhinsky at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Alexander Nezhinsky <alexandern at mellanox.com>
>
> This is a series of patches for a few "main" sources files.
> It fixes the style errors and warnings detected by curent version of checkpatch.pl.
>
> Please look over the fixes to validate the way in which they have been made.
>
> I strived to fix all errors and warnings with 2 exceptions.
> First, i can find no sensible way to avoid splitting strings used as format
> parameters to eprintf and friends. When the format is long and eprintf statment
> is indented it either violates the 80 char line limitation or the format string
> must be split.
> Another ignored warning is about returning errno codes from the program.
> The checker stipulates returning negative values which is the kernel convention.
> We seem to need to return positive values, don't we?
>
> Thus i used the following command:
> scripts/checkpatch.pl --ignore SPLIT_STRING,USE_NEGATIVE_ERRNO --show-types -f <src_file>
>
> Alexander Nezhinsky (4):
> style fixes in tgtd.c
> style fixes for target.c
> changed a misspelled ASC define to ASC_CMDS_CLEARED_BY_ANOTHER_INI
> style fixes for tgtadm.c
>
> usr/scsi.h | 2 +-
> usr/target.c | 199 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> usr/tgtadm.c | 214 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> usr/tgtd.c | 53 ++++++++-------
> 4 files changed, 267 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
Sorry, as I said before, I don't like to apply 'pure style fix'
patches.
Any reason of returning a negative value is bad for us?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the stgt
mailing list