Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH 2/2] staging: vt6655: Correct wrappping in rxtx.c | From | Milan Lakhani <> | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:32:21 +0000 |
| |
Hi Lukas,
On 23/11/2020 13:17, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Milan Lakhani > <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote: >> Correct line length and alignment in rxtx.c. Reported by checkpatch. >> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >> Cc: Forest Bond <forest@alittletooquiet.net> >> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> CC: linux-safety@lists.elisa.tech > Milan, I am wondering where you picked up this convention to add these > Cc: and CC: tags in your patch? > > Is there some documentation that points out to do that? (That might > need to be fixed...) > > Did you observe that on some other commits? I think these tags are > added by some maintainers (probably tool-supported) when they pick the > patches, not by the authors, though.
I'm using git send-email to send patches and, as described in the 'Sending patches with git send-email' section on https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch, git-send-email automatically Ccs people with the the Cc and CC tags. I did see this in other commits too, maybe they're used by the authors to pick out the maintainers to send the patches to?
> >> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> >> --- >> drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c >> index 508e1bd..4073c33 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c >> @@ -492,14 +492,29 @@ s_uFillDataHead( >> pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate, >> PK_TYPE_11B, &buf->b); >> /* Get Duration and TimeStamp */ >> - buf->duration_a = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> - buf->duration_b = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_B, cbFrameLength, PK_TYPE_11B, >> - pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> - buf->duration_a_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F0, cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> - buf->duration_a_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F1, cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration_a = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, >> + cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, >> + uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration_b = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_B, >> + cbFrameLength, PK_TYPE_11B, >> + pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate, >> + bNeedAck, uFragIdx, >> + cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration_a_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F0, >> + cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, >> + uFragIdx, >> + cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration_a_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F1, >> + cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, >> + uFragIdx, >> + cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> > Now to this change... it seems reasonable to refactor this into a > dedicated function or macro because this is largely "copy-and-paste" > calls with slight variable on a single argument. > > How about proposing such a change instead? Thanks, good idea, I have made a macro for it and am about to send the patch, it would be good to hear if it is what you were envisaging. >> buf->time_stamp_off_a = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate); >> buf->time_stamp_off_b = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate); >> @@ -517,12 +532,32 @@ s_uFillDataHead( >> byPktType, &buf->a); >> >> /* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */ >> - buf->duration = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> - buf->duration_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F0, cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> - buf->duration_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F1, cbFrameLength, byPktType, >> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, >> + cbFrameLength, >> + byPktType, >> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, >> + uFragIdx, >> + cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, >> + byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, >> + DATADUR_A_F0, >> + cbFrameLength, >> + byPktType, >> + wCurrentRate, >> + bNeedAck, uFragIdx, >> + cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, >> + byFBOption)); >> + buf->duration_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, >> + DATADUR_A_F1, >> + cbFrameLength, >> + byPktType, >> + wCurrentRate, >> + bNeedAck, uFragIdx, >> + cbLastFragmentSize, >> + uMACfragNum, >> + byFBOption)); >> buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate); >> return buf->duration; >> } >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> >> >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. >> View/Reply Online (#187): https://lists.elisa.tech/g/linux-safety/message/187 >> Mute This Topic: https://lists.elisa.tech/mt/78451464/1714638 >> Group Owner: linux-safety+owner@lists.elisa.tech >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.elisa.tech/g/linux-safety/unsub [lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com] >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> >>
| |