linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Staging: rtl8723bs: checkpatch fixes for rtw

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]

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:26:11 +0100
From: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To: Meir Elisha <meir6264@...il.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>,
 Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Staging: rtl8723bs: checkpatch fixes for
 rtw_mlme.c

On 2/1/24 15:04, Meir Elisha wrote:
> Checkpatch fix series for rtw_mlme.c
> 
> ---
> Changes in v2:
>   - Remove dead code
>   - Fix comment in _rtw_join_timeout_handler()
> 
> Meir Elisha (4):
>    Staging: rtl8723bs: Remove unnecessary braces
>    Staging: rtl8723bs: Remove extra spaces
>    Staging: rtl8723bs: Fix block comments warning
>    Staging: rtl8723bs: fix else after break warning
> 
>   drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme.c | 227 ++++++++--------------
>   1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 146 deletions(-)
> 

Hi Meir,

please keep the emailaddess send from and the Signed-off-by emailaddress 
exactly the same. The difference is the
"G" of gmail. One time it is upper case and one time lower case.

The changelog for the coverletter is good but the changelog for each 
patch is missing. There the "---" are missing with chagelog.

Please use more unique descriptions for your patches. "Remove extra 
spaces" can be an issue for hundred of times in a driver.
Look into accepted patches of the git for better examples.

I think the maintainer will not like your patch description. He will 
typically respond with:

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
   possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
   section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
   Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what is needed in
   order to properly describe the change.

Very important here is the why and not to describe what you did.
Look into accepted patches of the git for better examples.

Thanks for your support.

Bye Philipp