On 01.09.2020 10:11, tongc...@whu.edu.cn wrote:
> I run the checkpatch script against the c source, and the following output
> says it prefers a maximum of 75 chars per-line.
>
That's wrong. As the name suggests, checkpatch is meant to be used with patches,
not with source files.
> #./scripts/checkpatch.pl drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c
> WARNING: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per
> line)
> #1305:
This refers to line length in commit description, not source file line length.
> void r8169_hw_phy_config(struct rtl8169_private *tp, struct phy_device
> *phydev,
>
> ERROR: Does not appear to be a unified-diff format patch
>
> total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 0 lines checked
>
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c has style problems, please
> review.
>
> NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
>
> 2020年9月1日 下午3:57，Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com>写道：
>
> On 01.09.2020 09:52, tongc...@whu.edu.cn wrote:
> > 1)So the patch title should be written like this?
> > "net: reduce the param length of the line"
> >
> > 2)I have checked the patch with the checkpatch script, no warnings or
> errors.
> >
> > 3)I saw the line length exceeded 75 chars which may look better if was
> written on a new line (which was what checkpatch suggeted).
>
> Max line length is 80 characters, therefore I don't see what should be
> wrong with the
> current status. Can you send the checkpatch suggestion you're referring
> to?
>
> > (I'm a newbie to the patch world, know not much and feel like taking
> your advice sincerely)
> > 2020年9月1日 下午3:29，Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com>写道：
> >
> > On 01.09.2020 04:28, Tong Chen wrote:
> > > Reduce the param length of the line from 79 chars to 52 chars,
> > > which complies with kernel preferences.
> >
> > Apart from formal issues with the patch (missing net/net-next
> > annotation, wrong prefix): Did you get a checkpatch warning?
> > Or what's the source of your assumed kernel preference?
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tong Chen <tongc...@whu.edu.cn>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c
> > > index 913d030d73eb..f4b738cf8ad7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_phy_config.c
> > > @@ -1302,7 +1302,8 @@ static void rtl8125b_hw_phy_config(struct
> rtl8169_private *tp,
> > > rtl8125b_config_eee_phy(phydev);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -void r8169_hw_phy_config(struct rtl8169_private *tp, struct
> phy_device *phydev,
> > > +void r8169_hw_phy_config(struct rtl8169_private *tp,
> > > + struct phy_device *phydev,
> > > enum mac_version ver)
> > > {
> > > static const rtl_phy_cfg_fct phy_configs[] = {
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
