linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: wimax: Fix block comment style issue in stack.c

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]

Message-ID: <YDJarRhaoA/WFIyd@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:05:49 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Amrit Khera <amritkhera98@...il.com>
Cc:     lee.jones@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, kuba@...nel.org,
        mail@...rudhrb.com, ayush@...root.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wimax: Fix block comment style issue in stack.c

On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 01:55:25AM +0530, Amrit Khera wrote:
> This change fixes a checkpatch warning for "Block comments
> use * on subsequent lines".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amrit Khera <amritkhera98@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/wimax/stack.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wimax/stack.c b/drivers/staging/wimax/stack.c
> index ace24a6dfd2d..781426000015 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wimax/stack.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wimax/stack.c
> @@ -62,11 +62,12 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug,
>   * close to where the data is generated.
>   */
>  /*
> -static const struct nla_policy wimax_gnl_re_status_change[WIMAX_GNL_ATTR_MAX + 1] = {
> -	[WIMAX_GNL_STCH_STATE_OLD] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> -	[WIMAX_GNL_STCH_STATE_NEW] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> -};
> -*/
> + * static const struct nla_policy
> + * wimax_gnl_re_status_change[WIMAX_GNL_ATTR_MAX + 1] = {
> + *	[WIMAX_GNL_STCH_STATE_OLD] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> + *	[WIMAX_GNL_STCH_STATE_NEW] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> + * };
> + */

Why not just remove this variable entirely?  It's obviously not needed,
so just delete the thing.

thanks,

greg k-h