netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/10] rsi: fix comment syntax in file headers

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:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:01:56 +0100
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com>
Cc:     siva8118@...il.com, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        amitkarwar@...il.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] rsi: fix comment syntax in file headers

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:18 PM Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The opening comment mark '/**' is used for highlighting the beginning of
> kernel-doc comments.
> There are files in drivers/net/wireless/rsi which follow this syntax in
> their file headers, i.e. start with '/**' like comments, which causes
> unexpected warnings from kernel-doc.
>
> E.g., running scripts/kernel-doc -none on drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_coex.h
> causes this warning:
> "warning: wrong kernel-doc identifier on line:
>  * Copyright (c) 2018 Redpine Signals Inc."
>
> Similarly for other files too.
>
> Provide a simple fix by replacing the kernel-doc like comment syntax with
> general format, i.e. "/*", to prevent kernel-doc from parsing it.
>

Aditya, thanks for starting to clean up the repository following your
investigation on kernel-doc warnings.

The changes to all those files look sound.

However I think these ten patches are really just _one change_, and
hence, all can be put into a single commit.

Hints that suggest it is one change:

- The commit message is pretty much the same (same motivation, same
explanation, same design decisions)
- The change is basically the same (same resulting change in different files)
- All patches are sent to the same responsible people, all of the
patches would be reviewed and accepted by the same people.
- All ten patches can be reviewed at once.

How about merging all ten patches into one patch and sending out a v2.

Lukas