> -----Original Message----- > From: David Miller [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Rose, Gregory V; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [net 2/8] igb: fix vf lookup > > From: Joe Perches <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:49:40 -0800 > > > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 23:42 +0000, Rose, Gregory V wrote: > >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > > [] > >> > @@ -5012,7 +5012,8 @@ static int igb_find_enabled_vfs(struct > igb_adapter > >> > *adapter) > >> > vf_devfn = pdev->devfn + 0x80; > >> > pvfdev = pci_get_device(hw->vendor_id, device_id, NULL); > >> > while (pvfdev) { > >> > - if (pvfdev->devfn == vf_devfn) > >> > + if (pvfdev->devfn == vf_devfn && > >> > + (pvfdev->bus->number >= pdev->bus->number)) > >> > vfs_found++; > > [] > >> I'll fix this one too. You start leaning on checkpatch and you get > lazy I guess. > > > > I suppose an indentation rule could be created when > > arguments on multiple lines don't align at the open > > parenthesis, but I'm not going to rewrite emacs > > indentation rules. > > > > Presumably it should only be used with --strict. > > > > Anyone think multiple line tests with inequivalent uses > > of parentheses like this one should be noted as well? > > Actually I thought this case was perfectly fine.
The imbalanced parenthesis usage bothers me. And yes, if you're going to have a tool that checks patch formatting it'd be nice if it caught things like this. But then I'm the lazy fool here... - Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
