Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vmware_vga: fix out of bounds and invalid rects updating

[Anthony Liguori]

Michael Tokarev <address@hidden> writes:

> 25.01.2013 18:15, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thank you for submitting your patch series.  checkpatch.pl has
>> detected that one or more of the patches in this series violate
>> the QEMU coding style.
>> 
>> If you believe this message was sent in error, please ignore it
>> or respond here with an explanation.
>> 
>> Otherwise, please correct the coding style issues and resubmit a
>> new version of the patch.
>> 
>> For more information about QEMU coding style, see:
>> 
>> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blob_plain;f=CODING_STYLE;hb=HEAD
>> 
>> Here is the output from checkpatch.pl:
>> 
>> Subject: vmware_vga: fix out of bounds and invalid rects updating
>> WARNING: __func__ should be used instead of gcc specific __FUNCTION__
>> #73: FILE: hw/vmware_vga.c:300:
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s: update x was < 0 (%d)\n", __FUNCTION__, x);
>> 
>> WARNING: __func__ should be used instead of gcc specific __FUNCTION__
>> #78: FILE: hw/vmware_vga.c:305:
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s: update w was < 0 (%d)\n", __FUNCTION__, w);
>> 
>> WARNING: __func__ should be used instead of gcc specific __FUNCTION__
>> #89: FILE: hw/vmware_vga.c:316:
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s: update y was < 0 (%d)\n",  __FUNCTION__, y);
>> 
>> WARNING: __func__ should be used instead of gcc specific __FUNCTION__
>> #94: FILE: hw/vmware_vga.c:321:
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s: update h was < 0 (%d)\n",  __FUNCTION__, h);
>> 
>> total: 0 errors, 4 warnings, 30 lines checked
>> 
>> Your patch has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
>> are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
>> CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
>
>
> Okay.  I used the same style as were used in all the surrounding code.
>
> Should I change all the other code too?
>
> Or should the new code be different from the rest of this file?
>
> If we were to change it, I'd vote for applying this bugfix first
> and changing all occurences of __FUNCTION__ in one go in the next
> patch.

The patch is fine as-is.  Thanks for the explanation.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt