linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] staging: vc04_services: vchiq

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 13:58:23 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     John Oldman <john.oldman@...ehill.co.uk>
Cc:     nsaenzjulienne@...e.de, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] staging: vc04_services: vchiq_connected.c: Block
 comment alignment

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:13:08AM +0100, John Oldman wrote:
> Coding style issue
> This patch clears the checkpatch.pl "Block comments should align the * on each line" warning.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Oldman <john.oldman@...ehill.co.uk>
> ---
> v1: Initial attempt.
> v2: Resubmitted with shorter comment line, as suggested by Greg KH.
> v3: Resubmitted with descriptiuon text moved into the comment area.
> 
>  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c     | 32 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c
> index 1640906e3929..993535bbc479 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c
> @@ -15,10 +15,10 @@ static   int                        g_once_init;
>  static   struct mutex               g_connected_mutex;
>  
>  /****************************************************************************
> -*
> -* Function to initialize our lock.
> -*
> -***************************************************************************/
> + *
> + * Function to initialize our lock.
> + *
> + ***************************************************************************/
>  
>  static void connected_init(void)

Shouldn't that really be written as:

/* Function to initialize our lock */
static void connect_init(void);


No need for the /****** mess, and no need for the blank line.

Simple and clean is best.

thanks,

greg k-h