Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: iio: accel : sca3000_ring: Fixing code styling issues

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>]

On 04/06/11 20:24, Belisko Marek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:14 PM,  <nijs.michael@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Michael Nijs <nijs.michael@gmail.com>
>>
>> Fixed code styling issue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Nijs <nijs.michael@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> index fd1c844..c872fdd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int sca3000_rip_hw_rb(struct iio_ring_buffer *r,
>>
>>        /* Convert byte order and shift to default resolution */
>>        if (st->bpse == 11) {
>> -               samples = (s16 *)(*data+1);
>> +               samples = (s16*)(*data+1);
> Strange. My output(latest 2.6.39-rc2):
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
> ERROR: "(foo*)" should be "(foo *)"
> #94: FILE: staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c:94:
> +		samples = (s16*)(*data+1);
> 
> So for me it seems it was correct and you post patch with change where
> checkpatch will bark. Or am I missing something?
>>                for (i = 0; i < (num_read/2); i++) {
>>                        samples[i] = be16_to_cpup(
>>                                        (__be16 *)&(samples[i]));
There are some much nastier issues with that section of code. If nothing else
I dread to think what be16_to_cpup does with unaligned pointers.  There's a
rewrite of this code in my local tree anyway so either way the issue will probably
go away shortly!

Thanks anyway.

Jonathan