linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] drivers/staging/rtl8192u: Fix of checkpatch-errors

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

Message-ID: <20190603130513.GB30732@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:05:13 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Christian Müller <muellerch-privat@....de>
Cc:     johnfwhitmore@...il.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de,
        felix.trommer@...mail.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drivers/staging/rtl8192u: Fix of checkpatch-errors

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 02:21:04PM +0200, Christian Müller wrote:
> Fix issues that lead to multiple checkpatch warnings and errors, most of
> them regarding formatting of code and comments.
> Comments that contain only commented out code are removed as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Felix Trommer <felix.trommer@...mail.de>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Müller <muellerch-privat@....de>


- Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
  to review.  All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
  time.  If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
  style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
  one doing only one thing.  This will make it easier to review the
  patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
  merge issues that larger patches can cause.

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
  properly describe the change.

- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
  and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about.  Please read
  the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
  look like.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot