Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: qlge: Fix multiple WARNING and CHECK relating to formatting

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:42:06 +0100

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 02:28:39AM -0600, Scott Schafer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 08:31:36AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 07:47:59PM -0600, Scott Schafer wrote:
> > > CHECK: Please don't use multiple blank lines
> > > CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary before a close brace '}'
> > > CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> > > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> > > CHECK: No space is necessary after a cast
> > > CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement
> > > CHECK: Unbalanced braces around else statement
> > > WARNING: please, no space before tabs
> > > CHECK: spaces preferred around that '/' (ctx:VxV)
> > > CHECK: spaces preferred around that '+' (ctx:VxV)
> > > CHECK: spaces preferred around that '%' (ctx:VxV)
> > > CHECK: spaces preferred around that '|' (ctx:VxV)
> > > CHECK: spaces preferred around that '*' (ctx:VxV)
> > > WARNING: Unnecessary space before function pointer arguments
> > > WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line
> > > WARNING: Block comments use a trailing */ on a separate line
> > > ERROR: trailing whitespace
> > > 
> > > In files qlge.h, qlge_dbg.c, qlge_ethtool.c, qlge_main.c, and qlge_mpi.c
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Scott Schafer <[email-masked]>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h         |  45 ++++++-------
> > >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_dbg.c     |  41 ++++++-----
> > >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_ethtool.c |  20 ++++--
> > >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c    | 101 ++++++++++++++--------------
> > >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c     |  37 +++++-----
> > >  5 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> > a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> > created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> > kernel tree.
> > 
> > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> > as indicated below:
> > 
> > - Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
> >   to review.  All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
> >   time.  If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
> >   style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
> >   one doing only one thing.  This will make it easier to review the
> >   patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
> >   merge issues that larger patches can cause.
> > 
> > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> > from other developers.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h's patch email bot
> 
> I was wondering how I would go about chaning the patch.

Break it up into "one patch per logical change".

See the many other patchsets on this mailing list for examples of how
this is done.

> I know I should switch to a patchset but how would I go about doing
> that?

What exactly do you mean by "how"?

> Also where would I place the new patches?

You email them here :)

> Would I, create a new patch series or would I split the patch into new
> (smaller) patches and reply to this thread?

Just a whole new patch series is good.

thanks,

greg k-h