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: <CAHJEyKURpAYT-2a3wA9aqO2=wYRK=4MQ9sq3SBCg5yoSNKFo1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 19:17:56 +0100
From:   Tanju Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
To:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.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

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 7:11 PM Alison Schofield
<alison.schofield@...el.com> wrote:
>
> 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
The commit logs I changed  too but they did not show in the
patches when I sent them. I don't get how that happened.
Thanks for the corrections. like i said, I will be sticking with single patches
for now.
Thanks,
Tanju
> >
> >  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 542 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 324 insertions(+), 218 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
>