linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: ks7010: Block comments use * on subsequent lines

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:08:18 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ks7010: Block comments use * on subsequent lines

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 09:02:33PM +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
> Some of the block comments styles are not encouraged:
> for example:
> /*
> block comment without introductory *
> */
> and
> /*
> * block comment with line terminating */
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> index a604c83c957e..2c263f98bdbb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
> @@ -495,8 +495,10 @@ static void ks7010_rw_function(struct work_struct *work)
>  	/* wiat after WAKEUP */
>  	while (time_after(priv->last_wakeup + ((30 * HZ) / 1000), jiffies)) {
>  		DPRINTK(4, "wait after WAKEUP\n");
> -/*		queue_delayed_work(priv->ks_wlan_hw.ks7010sdio_wq,&priv->ks_wlan_hw.rw_wq,
> -		(priv->last_wakeup + ((30*HZ)/1000) - jiffies));*/
> +/* 
> + *   queue_delayed_work(priv->ks_wlan_hw.ks7010sdio_wq,&priv->ks_wlan_hw.rw_wq,
> + *   (priv->last_wakeup + ((30*HZ)/1000) - jiffies));
> + */

Why did you loose the correct indentation here when you commented this
out?

If it's commented out, why not just delete the code instead?

thanks,

greg k-h