| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:56:45 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Shubhankar Kuranagatti <shubhankarvk@...il.com>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: memstick: core:ms_block.c: Fix alignment of
block comment
On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 08:35, Shubhankar Kuranagatti
<shubhankarvk@...il.com> wrote:
>
> A * has been added to subsequent lines of block comment
> The closing */ has been shifted to a new line
> A new line has been give after declaration
> This is done to maintain code uniformity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shubhankar Kuranagatti <shubhankarvk@...il.com>
Applied for next, thanks!
Kind regards
Uffe
> ---
> drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c b/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c
> index 8004dd64d09a..d971acd98236 100644
> --- a/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c
> +++ b/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c
> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int msb_sg_compare_to_buffer(struct scatterlist *sg,
> * Each zone consists of 512 eraseblocks, out of which in first
> * zone 494 are used and 496 are for all following zones.
> * Therefore zone #0 hosts blocks 0-493, zone #1 blocks 494-988, etc...
> -*/
> + */
> static int msb_get_zone_from_lba(int lba)
> {
> if (lba < 494)
> @@ -348,8 +348,9 @@ static int h_msb_read_page(struct memstick_dev *card,
> switch (msb->state) {
> case MSB_RP_SEND_BLOCK_ADDRESS:
> /* msb_write_regs sometimes "fails" because it needs to update
> - the reg window, and thus it returns request for that.
> - Then we stay in this state and retry */
> + * the reg window, and thus it returns request for that.
> + * Then we stay in this state and retry
> + */
> if (!msb_write_regs(msb,
> offsetof(struct ms_register, param),
> sizeof(struct ms_param_register),
> @@ -368,7 +369,8 @@ static int h_msb_read_page(struct memstick_dev *card,
> case MSB_RP_SEND_INT_REQ:
> msb->state = MSB_RP_RECEIVE_INT_REQ_RESULT;
> /* If dont actually need to send the int read request (only in
> - serial mode), then just fall through */
> + * serial mode), then just fall through
> + */
> if (msb_read_int_reg(msb, -1))
> return 0;
> fallthrough;
> @@ -702,7 +704,8 @@ static int h_msb_parallel_switch(struct memstick_dev *card,
>
> case MSB_PS_SWICH_HOST:
> /* Set parallel interface on our side + send a dummy request
> - to see if card responds */
> + * to see if card responds
> + */
> host->set_param(host, MEMSTICK_INTERFACE, MEMSTICK_PAR4);
> memstick_init_req(mrq, MS_TPC_GET_INT, NULL, 1);
> msb->state = MSB_PS_CONFIRM;
> @@ -821,6 +824,7 @@ static int msb_mark_page_bad(struct msb_data *msb, int pba, int page)
> static int msb_erase_block(struct msb_data *msb, u16 pba)
> {
> int error, try;
> +
> if (msb->read_only)
> return -EROFS;
>
> @@ -997,6 +1001,7 @@ static int msb_write_block(struct msb_data *msb,
> u16 pba, u32 lba, struct scatterlist *sg, int offset)
> {
> int error, current_try = 1;
> +
> BUG_ON(sg->length < msb->page_size);
>
> if (msb->read_only)
> @@ -1045,11 +1050,12 @@ static int msb_write_block(struct msb_data *msb,
> error = msb_run_state_machine(msb, h_msb_write_block);
>
> /* Sector we just wrote to is assumed erased since its pba
> - was erased. If it wasn't erased, write will succeed
> - and will just clear the bits that were set in the block
> - thus test that what we have written,
> - matches what we expect.
> - We do trust the blocks that we erased */
> + * was erased. If it wasn't erased, write will succeed
> + * and will just clear the bits that were set in the block
> + * thus test that what we have written,
> + * matches what we expect.
> + * We do trust the blocks that we erased
> + */
> if (!error && (verify_writes ||
> !test_bit(pba, msb->erased_blocks_bitmap)))
> error = msb_verify_block(msb, pba, sg, offset);
> @@ -1493,6 +1499,7 @@ static int msb_ftl_scan(struct msb_data *msb)
> static void msb_cache_flush_timer(struct timer_list *t)
> {
> struct msb_data *msb = from_timer(msb, t, cache_flush_timer);
> +
> msb->need_flush_cache = true;
> queue_work(msb->io_queue, &msb->io_work);
> }
> @@ -1673,7 +1680,8 @@ static int msb_cache_read(struct msb_data *msb, int lba,
> * This table content isn't that importaint,
> * One could put here different values, providing that they still
> * cover whole disk.
> - * 64 MB entry is what windows reports for my 64M memstick */
> + * 64 MB entry is what windows reports for my 64M memstick
> + */
>
> static const struct chs_entry chs_table[] = {
> /* size sectors cylynders heads */
> @@ -1706,8 +1714,9 @@ static int msb_init_card(struct memstick_dev *card)
> return error;
>
> /* Due to a bug in Jmicron driver written by Alex Dubov,
> - its serial mode barely works,
> - so we switch to parallel mode right away */
> + * its serial mode barely works,
> + * so we switch to parallel mode right away
> + */
> if (host->caps & MEMSTICK_CAP_PAR4)
> msb_switch_to_parallel(msb);
>
> @@ -2033,6 +2042,7 @@ static blk_status_t msb_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> static int msb_check_card(struct memstick_dev *card)
> {
> struct msb_data *msb = memstick_get_drvdata(card);
> +
> return (msb->card_dead == 0);
> }
>
> @@ -2333,6 +2343,7 @@ static struct memstick_driver msb_driver = {
> static int __init msb_init(void)
> {
> int rc = memstick_register_driver(&msb_driver);
> +
> if (rc)
> pr_err("failed to register memstick driver (error %d)\n", rc);
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists