| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1446023500-21292-5-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:41:33 +0530
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 04/11] parport: fix coding style
The multi-line comments were not according to the kernel coding style.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@...torindia.org>
---
drivers/parport/share.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/parport/share.c b/drivers/parport/share.c
index d85e566..840c730 100644
--- a/drivers/parport/share.c
+++ b/drivers/parport/share.c
@@ -207,8 +207,10 @@ static void detach_driver_chain(struct parport *port)
/* Ask kmod for some lowlevel drivers. */
static void get_lowlevel_driver (void)
{
- /* There is no actual module called this: you should set
- * up an alias for modutils. */
+ /*
+ * There is no actual module called this: you should set
+ * up an alias for modutils.
+ */
request_module ("parport_lowlevel");
}
@@ -728,11 +730,12 @@ parport_register_device(struct parport *port, const char *name,
}
}
- /* We up our own module reference count, and that of the port
- on which a device is to be registered, to ensure that
- neither of us gets unloaded while we sleep in (e.g.)
- kmalloc.
- */
+ /*
+ * We up our own module reference count, and that of the port
+ * on which a device is to be registered, to ensure that
+ * neither of us gets unloaded while we sleep in (e.g.)
+ * kmalloc.
+ */
if (!try_module_get(port->ops->owner)) {
return NULL;
}
@@ -783,9 +786,11 @@ parport_register_device(struct parport *port, const char *name,
}
tmp->next = port->physport->devices;
- wmb(); /* Make sure that tmp->next is written before it's
- added to the list; see comments marked 'no locking
- required' */
+ wmb(); /*
+ * Make sure that tmp->next is written before it's
+ * added to the list; see comments marked 'no locking
+ * required'
+ */
if (port->physport->devices)
port->physport->devices->prev = tmp;
port->physport->devices = tmp;
@@ -1008,8 +1013,10 @@ void parport_unregister_device(struct pardevice *dev)
spin_unlock(&port->pardevice_lock);
- /* Make sure we haven't left any pointers around in the wait
- * list. */
+ /*
+ * Make sure we haven't left any pointers around in the wait
+ * list.
+ */
spin_lock_irq(&port->waitlist_lock);
if (dev->waitprev || dev->waitnext || port->waithead == dev) {
if (dev->waitprev)
@@ -1131,8 +1138,10 @@ int parport_claim(struct pardevice *dev)
goto blocked;
if (port->cad != oldcad) {
- /* I think we'll actually deadlock rather than
- get here, but just in case.. */
+ /*
+ * I think we'll actually deadlock rather than
+ * get here, but just in case..
+ */
printk(KERN_WARNING
"%s: %s released port when preempted!\n",
port->name, oldcad->name);
@@ -1185,9 +1194,11 @@ int parport_claim(struct pardevice *dev)
return 0;
blocked:
- /* If this is the first time we tried to claim the port, register an
- interest. This is only allowed for devices sleeping in
- parport_claim_or_block(), or those with a wakeup function. */
+ /*
+ * If this is the first time we tried to claim the port, register an
+ * interest. This is only allowed for devices sleeping in
+ * parport_claim_or_block(), or those with a wakeup function.
+ */
/* The cad_lock is still held for writing here */
if (dev->waiting & 2 || dev->wakeup) {
@@ -1223,8 +1234,10 @@ int parport_claim_or_block(struct pardevice *dev)
{
int r;
- /* Signal to parport_claim() that we can wait even without a
- wakeup function. */
+ /*
+ * Signal to parport_claim() that we can wait even without a
+ * wakeup function.
+ */
dev->waiting = 2;
/* Try to claim the port. If this fails, we need to sleep. */
@@ -1242,8 +1255,10 @@ int parport_claim_or_block(struct pardevice *dev)
* See also parport_release()
*/
- /* If dev->waiting is clear now, an interrupt
- gave us the port and we would deadlock if we slept. */
+ /*
+ * If dev->waiting is clear now, an interrupt
+ * gave us the port and we would deadlock if we slept.
+ */
if (dev->waiting) {
wait_event_interruptible(dev->wait_q,
!dev->waiting);
@@ -1316,8 +1331,10 @@ void parport_release(struct pardevice *dev)
/* Save control registers */
port->ops->save_state(port, dev->state);
- /* If anybody is waiting, find out who's been there longest and
- then wake them up. (Note: no locking required) */
+ /*
+ * If anybody is waiting, find out who's been there longest and
+ * then wake them up. (Note: no locking required)
+ */
/* !!! LOCKING IS NEEDED HERE */
for (pd = port->waithead; pd; pd = pd->waitnext) {
if (pd->waiting & 2) { /* sleeping in claim_or_block */
@@ -1334,8 +1351,10 @@ void parport_release(struct pardevice *dev)
}
}
- /* Nobody was waiting, so walk the list to see if anyone is
- interested in being woken up. (Note: no locking required) */
+ /*
+ * Nobody was waiting, so walk the list to see if anyone is
+ * interested in being woken up. (Note: no locking required)
+ */
/* !!! LOCKING IS NEEDED HERE */
for (pd = port->devices; (port->cad == NULL) && pd; pd = pd->next) {
if (pd->wakeup && pd != dev)
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists