Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Code cleanup #596

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from
Closed

Code cleanup #596

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

PierceGriffiths
Copy link
Contributor

I did my best to clean up bits and pieces of the kernel code.

@KernelPRBot
Copy link

Hi @PierceGriffiths!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

  • Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
  • Decide who to send your contribution to
  • Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
  • Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Who do I send my contribution to?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

  • You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
  • Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
  • Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
    • Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
    • Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
    • Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

Cleaned up previous changes to loops for readability
Reverted unnecessary loop changes and added bool casts to previously modified function returns
Reverted unnecessary replacement of for(;;) with while(1)
Reverted unnecessary changes made to loops
Consolidated an if ... else into an equivalent return statement
Made adjustments necessary for patch to meet code style requirements
shcgit pushed a commit to shcgit/linux that referenced this pull request Dec 12, 2018
When a tail call fails, it is documented that the tail call should
continue execution at the following instruction.  An example tail call
sequence is:

  12: (85) call bpf_tail_call#12
  13: (b7) r0 = 0
  14: (95) exit

The ARM assembler for the tail call in this case ends up branching to
instruction 14 instead of instruction 13, resulting in the BPF filter
returning a non-zero value:

  178:	ldr	r8, [sp, torvalds#588]	; insn 12
  17c:	ldr	r6, [r8, r6]
  180:	ldr	r8, [sp, torvalds#580]
  184:	cmp	r8, r6
  188:	bcs	0x1e8
  18c:	ldr	r6, [sp, torvalds#524]
  190:	ldr	r7, [sp, torvalds#528]
  194:	cmp	r7, #0
  198:	cmpeq	r6, torvalds#32
  19c:	bhi	0x1e8
  1a0:	adds	r6, r6, #1
  1a4:	adc	r7, r7, #0
  1a8:	str	r6, [sp, torvalds#524]
  1ac:	str	r7, [sp, torvalds#528]
  1b0:	mov	r6, torvalds#104
  1b4:	ldr	r8, [sp, torvalds#588]
  1b8:	add	r6, r8, r6
  1bc:	ldr	r8, [sp, torvalds#580]
  1c0:	lsl	r7, r8, #2
  1c4:	ldr	r6, [r6, r7]
  1c8:	cmp	r6, #0
  1cc:	beq	0x1e8
  1d0:	mov	r8, torvalds#32
  1d4:	ldr	r6, [r6, r8]
  1d8:	add	r6, r6, torvalds#44
  1dc:	bx	r6
  1e0:	mov	r0, #0		; insn 13
  1e4:	mov	r1, #0
  1e8:	add	sp, sp, torvalds#596	; insn 14
  1ec:	pop	{r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, sl, pc}

For other sequences, the tail call could end up branching midway through
the following BPF instructions, or maybe off the end of the function,
leading to unknown behaviours.

Fixes: 39c13c2 ("arm: eBPF JIT compiler")
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2021
This commit fixes the following checkpatch.pl errors:

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#307: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:307:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#313: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:313:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo *	bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#592: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:592:
    +int WMM_param_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie *	pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#595: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:595:
    +void HT_caps_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#596: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:596:
    +void HT_info_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#599: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:599:
    +void ERP_IE_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#606: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:606:
    +void update_capinfo(struct adapter * Adapter, u16 updateCap);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#633: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:633:
    +void report_del_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, unsigned short reason);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#634: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:634:
    +void report_add_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, int cam_idx);

Signed-off-by: Marco Cesati <marcocesati@gmail.com>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2021
This commit fixes the following checkpatch.pl errors:

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#307: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:307:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#313: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:313:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo *	bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#592: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:592:
    +int WMM_param_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie *	pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#595: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:595:
    +void HT_caps_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#596: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:596:
    +void HT_info_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#599: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:599:
    +void ERP_IE_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#606: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:606:
    +void update_capinfo(struct adapter * Adapter, u16 updateCap);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#633: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:633:
    +void report_del_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, unsigned short reason);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#634: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:634:
    +void report_add_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, int cam_idx);

Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Marco Cesati <marcocesati@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210315170618.2566-54-marcocesati@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
ojeda added a commit to ojeda/linux that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2021
`vsprintf`: avoid `#ifdef` in `.c` file
Mimoja pushed a commit to Mimoja/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants