Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 20 Dec 2020 17:29:21 +0200
From:   Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@gmail.com>
To:     Daniel West <daniel.west.dev@gmail.com>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        insafonov@gmail.com, gustavoars@kernel.org,
        andrealmeidap1996@gmail.com, yepeilin.cs@gmail.com,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8455/8455] staging: rtl8188eu: core: fixed a comment
 format issue.
Message-ID: <20201220152921.dqlsmqfvygtpzj5b@kari-VirtualBox>
References: <20201219224312.380126-1-daniel.west.dev@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201219224312.380126-1-daniel.west.dev@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 02:43:12PM -0800, Daniel West wrote:
> Fixed a checkpatch warning:
> 
> WARNING: Block comments use * on subsequent lines
>  #4595: FILE: drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:4595:
> +/****************************************************************************
> +
> 
> The code is full of comments like this. Should the coding style
> be inforced here, even when there is a logic to the way the code
> was broken up?

You should make one patch which atleast fix one file at ones. It would
be even better if it fixes whole stuff (example one driver) right a way.
Also note that you should not but this kind messages to your patch
message. If you want to note this kind of thing you can use --- and
after that it will not included in patch itself. You can read it online
more.

Also where does this [PATCH 8455/8455] even come from? Good thing is
that you really didn't send so many patches or atleast I won't see them.

And it seems that you are new so welcome a board :)

--
Kari Argillander