[PATCH net-next] net: lantiq_etop: add blank line after declaration

This patch adds a missing line after the declaration and
fixes the checkpatch warning:

WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
+		int desc;
+		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)

Signed-off-by: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c
index 072391c494ce..78257cbe7fb6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c

@@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ ltq_etop_free_channel(struct net_device *dev, struct ltq_etop_chan *ch)
 		free_irq(ch->dma.irq, priv);
 	if (IS_RX(ch->idx)) {
 		int desc;
+
 		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
 			dev_kfree_skb_any(ch->skb[ch->dma.desc]);
 	}

-- 
2.30.2

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (master)
by Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref]:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 23:00:31 +0100 you wrote:

This patch adds a missing line after the declaration and
fixes the checkpatch warning:

WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
+		int desc;
+		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)

[...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net-next] net: lantiq_etop: add blank line after declaration
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/4c46625bb586

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

(adding John Crispin, the original submitter of this driver)

On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 23:00 +0100, Aleksander Jan Bajkowski wrote:

This patch adds a missing line after the declaration and
fixes the checkpatch warning:

WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
+		int desc;
+		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)

Signed-off-by: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <redacted>

[]

[]

The change is innocuous and has already been applied but the code
doesn't seem to make sense.

Why is dev_kfree_skb_any called multiple times with the same argument?

Is there some missing logic here?  Maybe a missing ++?

Something like:

		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
 			dev_kfree_skb_any(ch->skb[ch->dma.desc++]);

Dunno, but the current code seems wrong.

Hi Joe,

On 1/8/22 09:04, Joe Perches wrote:

(adding John Crispin, the original submitter of this driver)

On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 23:00 +0100, Aleksander Jan Bajkowski wrote:

quoted

This patch adds a missing line after the declaration and
fixes the checkpatch warning:

WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
+		int desc;
+		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)

Signed-off-by: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <redacted>

[]

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/lantiq_etop.c

[]

quoted

@@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ ltq_etop_free_channel(struct net_device *dev, struct ltq_etop_chan *ch)
 		free_irq(ch->dma.irq, priv);
 	if (IS_RX(ch->idx)) {
 		int desc;
+
 		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
 			dev_kfree_skb_any(ch->skb[ch->dma.desc]);
 	}

The change is innocuous and has already been applied but the code
doesn't seem to make sense.

Why is dev_kfree_skb_any called multiple times with the same argument?

Is there some missing logic here?  Maybe a missing ++?

Something like:

		for (desc = 0; desc < LTQ_DESC_NUM; desc++)
 			dev_kfree_skb_any(ch->skb[ch->dma.desc++]);

Dunno, but the current code seems wrong.

FYI: This driver is mainly used by OpenWRT. OpenWRT has two
patches that were never upstreamed. One of them is called
"various etop fixes" and I would expect more bugs in this driver.
The part that adds support for ar9 must be rewritten before
upstreaming. This SoC has a built-in 2 port switch and needs
a DSA driver. The rest of the fixes in this patch can probably
be sent upstream.


1. https://github.com/abajk/openwrt/blob/master/target/linux/lantiq/patches-5.10/0028-NET-lantiq-various-etop-fixes.patch
2. https://github.com/abajk/openwrt/blob/master/target/linux/lantiq/patches-5.10/0701-NET-lantiq-etop-of-mido.patch