linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] staging: vt6655: a series of checkpatch fixes on the file: rxtx.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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y1wbVeLCLZClEQ6L@aschofie-mobl2>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:11:33 -0700
From:   Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
To:     Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] staging: vt6655: a series of checkpatch fixes on
 the file: rxtx.c

We know it's a patchset or series, saying so in subject line is 
redundant. Perhaps - 'Checkpatch cleanup in rxtx.c'

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 05:40:52PM +0000, Tanjuate Brunostar wrote:
> The fixes are similar, mostly long lines splitting. I had to make
> serveral patches to ease the work of inspectors
  ^
Please use a spell checker.

> 
> v2: fixed a compilation error found by the kernel test robot and
> recompiled the code

Expected to be in reverse order, with latest changes first.
ie. Here you would start with v8

> v3: tends out the error persisted in the second version. this version is
> a correction of that

?

> 
> v4: did some corrections as recommended by Greg KH

State what changed. Do not expect your review to go back
hunting for past review comments.

Same for all below.

> 
> v5: shortend changelog comments as recommended by Greg KH
> 
> v6: did some corrections as recommended by Greg KH
> 
> v7: fixed some errors on my changelog comments
> 
> v8: fixed some errors pointed out by Philipp Hortmann
> 
> Tanjuate Brunostar (6):
>   staging: vt6655: fix lines ending in a '('

Move ( to end of line

>   staging: vt6655: fix long lines of code in s_uGetRTSCTSDuration

This doesn't match what was actually done

>   staging: vt6655: fix long lines of code in s_uFillDataHead
>   staging: vt6655: fix long lines of code in s_vGenerateTxParamete
>   staging: vt6655: fix long lines of code in the rest of the file

Each commit msg needs to stand alone. The one above only makes
sense (still it's a poor message) when viewed in this patchset.
Once the patches are applied, it must stand alone.

The commit msg should read like a directive. Fix is too general.
Commit msg states what you did, commit log states why you did it.

I see you took 'refactoring' out of the commit messages, but left it
in the commit logs. It doesn't belong in the logs. As another
reviewer pointed out, this is not a refactor.

Alison
> 
>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 542 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 324 insertions(+), 218 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
>