Alexander Aring wrote: > @@ -1065,7 +1065,7 @@ lowpan_process_data(struct sk_buff *skb) > skb_copy_to_linear_data(skb, &uh, sizeof(struct udphdr)); > > lowpan_raw_dump_table(__func__, "raw UDP header dump", > - (u8 *)&uh, sizeof(uh)); > + (u8 *)&uh, sizeof(uh));
This one still isn't right, according to checkpatch --strict. > @@ -1080,8 +1080,8 @@ lowpan_process_data(struct sk_buff *skb) > "nexthdr = 0x%02x\n\thop_lim = %d\n", hdr.version, > ntohs(hdr.payload_len), hdr.nexthdr, hdr.hop_limit); > > - lowpan_raw_dump_table(__func__, "raw header dump", (u8 *)&hdr, > - sizeof(hdr)); > + lowpan_raw_dump_table(__func__, "raw header dump", > + (u8 *)&hdr, sizeof(hdr)); This one passes. > @@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ static int lowpan_get_mac_header_length(struct sk_buff > *skb) > > static int > lowpan_fragment_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, u8 *head, > - int mlen, int plen, int offset, int type) > + int mlen, int plen, int offset, int type) checkpatch --strict dislikes it. > @@ -1142,8 +1142,8 @@ lowpan_fragment_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, u8 *head, > skb_copy_from_linear_data_offset(skb, offset + mlen, > skb_put(frag, plen), plen); By the way, checkpatch --strict also complains about this one (and several other things as well.) > > - lowpan_raw_dump_table(__func__, " raw fragment dump", frag->data, > - frag->len); > + lowpan_raw_dump_table(__func__, " raw fragment dump", > + frag->data, frag->len); This one looks good now. - Werner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
