linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: Thunderbolt: ctl.c: Fixed comment coding style issues

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: <Yrv3PTCgzZGu3l8j@vao>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:54:53 +1000
From:   Gabriel Viso Carrera <gabriel@...soc.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     andreas.noever@...il.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: Thunderbolt: ctl.c: Fixed comment coding
 style issues

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 02:37:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> 
> I'd indent this only 1 level and put it before the call
> (and fix the loose/lose typo)
> 
> {
> 	/* We ignore failures during stop.
> 	 * All rx packets are referenced from ctl->rx_packets,
> 	 * so we do not lose them.
> 	 */
> 	tb_ring_rx(pkg->ctl->rx, &pkg->frame);
> }
> 

Fair enough. Not sure on how to proceed, as these were my 
first patches ever sent, and I don't want to make anyone 
work more than the strictly necessary. 

- Should I submit an additional patch intended to be applied 
on top of 3/3?
- Should I sumbit a whole new 3/3, addressing the whole comment
issues all at once?
- Should I just wait on the outcome and proceed from there?

Advice would be appreciated.

Anyway, I will be sending some patches over other files for 
the time being, paying more attention to the details.

Thanks,
~Gabriel