[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1464690582.3076.21.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:29:42 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Kirtika Ruchandani <kirtika.ruchandani@...il.com>,
ruchandani.tina@...il.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nl80211: Fix checkpatch warnings
On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 10:30 +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Kirtika Ruchandani
> <kirtika.ruchandani@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl warnings about
> > comments in nl80211.c :
> > - networking block comments don't use an empty '/*' line
> > - block comments use a trailing '*/' on a separate line
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirtika Ruchandani <kirtika.ruchandani@...il.com>
> The change and logic behind it are sound, so it gets my:
>
> Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
>
> however I'm concerned that this file is a deliberate exception to the
> networking comment rules.
>
It's kinda mixed, I never really enforced one style or the other ...
I'm kinda taking both now, with a slight preference towards the
networking style perhaps (to please davem :) )
That said, in general I'm not really sure of the value of all of these
patches - perhaps the kcalloc() one makes sense, not for checkpatch
reasons but rather for size limit/integer overflow reasons, and the
ether address assign for general readability, but overall ...
I'll have to make up my mind :)
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists