Detlev Zundel wrote:
Hi Luca,
Il 19/04/2011 16:18, Detlev Zundel ha scritto:
Hi Luca,
With the upcoming TFTP server implementation, the remote node can be either a client or a server, so avoid ambiguities.
Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoliluca.ceresoli@comelit.it Cc: Wolfgang Denkwd@denx.de
Changes in v2:
- fixed checkpatch issues.
net/tftp.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/tftp.c b/net/tftp.c index 00abec3..da545c6 100644 --- a/net/tftp.c +++ b/net/tftp.c @@ -55,18 +55,18 @@ enum { TFTP_ERR_FILE_ALREADY_EXISTS = 6, };
-static IPaddr_t TftpServerIP; -static int TftpServerPort; /* The UDP port at their end */ -static int TftpOurPort; /* The UDP port at our end */ +static IPaddr_t TftpRemoteIP; +static int TftpRemotePort; /* The UDP port at their end */ +static int TftpOurPort; /* The UDP port at our end */ static int TftpTimeoutCount; -static ulong TftpBlock; /* packet sequence number */ -static ulong TftpLastBlock; /* last packet sequence number received */ -static ulong TftpBlockWrap; /* count of sequence number wraparounds */ -static ulong TftpBlockWrapOffset; /* memory offset due to wrapping */ +static ulong TftpBlock; /* packet sequence number */ +static ulong TftpLastBlock; /* last packet sequence number received */ +static ulong TftpBlockWrap; /* count of sequence number wraparounds */ +static ulong TftpBlockWrapOffset; /* memory offset due to wrapping */
These changes are indentation only changes, so they should be in a separate patch.
It's needed for checkpatch compliance.
I'm trying to understand the problems involved, but looking at this again, it is not clear to me what you say here. When I run your version 1 of the patches (where you only do the rename) through checkpatch, I get:
WARNING: line over 80 characters #116: FILE: net/tftp.c:59: +static int TftpRemotePort; /* The UDP port at their end */
WARNING: consider using kstrto* in preference to simple_strtol #215: FILE: net/tftp.c:619:
TftpRemotePort = simple_strtol(ep, NULL, 10);total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 99 lines checked
/home/dzu/transfer/p2 has style problems, please review. If any of these errors are false positives report them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
So I'm not sure why you say that the other changes are needed for checkpatch. What exactly do you mean by this?
All the comments were nicely columned before my patchset. Reducing the length of a line would have broken this.
I chose to change all of them in order to preserve the pre-existing coding style.
Luca