linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: fcrypt: Fix block comment

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: <CAAUT3iN3fxN3OE5XB5H1C4xNwo91dF9QMmhDiviHmbwaD1KrVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:23:34 +0200
From:   Franziska Näpelt 
        <franziska.naepelt@...glemail.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bagasdotme@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: fcrypt: Fix block comment

Am So., 11. Juni 2023 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>:
>
> Hi--
>
> On 6/11/23 03:53, Franziska Naepelt wrote:
> > Fix the following checkpatch issue:
> > - WARNING: Block comments use a trailing */ on a separate line
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Franziska Naepelt <franziska.naepelt@...il.com>
> > ---
> > v2:
> >  - Revert SPDX change to address only one logical change
> > ---
> >  crypto/fcrypt.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/crypto/fcrypt.c b/crypto/fcrypt.c
> > index 95a16e88899b..e9e119bab784 100644
> > --- a/crypto/fcrypt.c
> > +++ b/crypto/fcrypt.c
> > @@ -303,7 +303,8 @@ static int fcrypt_setkey(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, const u8 *key, unsigned int key
> >
> >  #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64  /* the 64-bit version can also be used for 32-bit
> >                         * kernels - it seems to be faster but the code is
> > -                       * larger */
> > +                       * larger
> > +                       */
>
> The comment doesn't begin with a /* on a line by itself either.
>
> checkpatch isn't always correct.
> Maybe it isn't in this case.
>
> I would either make it a correct multi-line comment or not make a change
> at all here.
>
> >
> >       u64 k;  /* k holds all 56 non-parity bits */
> >
> >
> > base-commit: 9561de3a55bed6bdd44a12820ba81ec416e705a7
>
> --
> ~Randy

Hi Randy,
thanks for the heads up. I'll leave it for now and won't make a change.
Thanks, Franziska