> >Is it because the static void is on the previous line? > Yes, it is because the static void is on the previous line. > > I can add one patch to fix the previous line , and this patch will correct > automatically. > > do it need V2 patchset? or push a new patch after this patchset?
Thanks for looking into this. This actually seems like a patch bug, but i think the consensus is to have the function type on the same line as the function name within Linux. No need for a v2. Just send followup patches. Andrew
