linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8455/8455] staging: rtl8188eu: core: fixed a comment format issue.

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: <X+nnAwy/a7mZlmeL@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:09:07 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Daniel West <daniel.west.dev@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        insafonov@...il.com, gustavoars@...nel.org,
        andrealmeidap1996@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yepeilin.cs@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8455/8455] staging: rtl8188eu: core: fixed a comment
 format issue.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 02:43:12PM -0800, Daniel West wrote:
> Fixed a checkpatch warning:
> 
> WARNING: Block comments use * on subsequent lines
>  #4595: FILE: drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:4595:
> +/****************************************************************************
> +
> 
> The code is full of comments like this. Should the coding style
> be inforced here, even when there is a logic to the way the code
> was broken up?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel West <daniel.west.dev@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> index 8794907a39f4..adf2788a416f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> @@ -4591,11 +4591,10 @@ void mlmeext_sta_del_event_callback(struct adapter *padapter)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -/****************************************************************************
> -
> -Following are the functions for the timer handlers
> -
> -*****************************************************************************/
> +/*
> + *
> + *Following are the functions for the timer handlers
> + */

Does that look correct?  Make it all one line please.

thanks,

greg k-h