Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 11 Dec 2022 12:33:30 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Dalvin Aiguobas <pharcodra@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        outreachy@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: fix checkpatch error for spinlock
Message-ID: <Y5XACri80rFeamVy@kroah.com>
References: <20221211105649.GA4683@koolguy>
 <Y5W5nKtLMV9b4xnm@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5W5nKtLMV9b4xnm@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 11:56:49AM +0100, Dalvin Aiguobas wrote:
> > Checkpatch Styleproblem fixed by adding comment.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dalvin <pharcodra@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
> > index 0611e37df6ac..ad117d570bb6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x.h
> > @@ -1171,6 +1171,7 @@ struct hfa384x_usbctlx {
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct hfa384x_usbctlxq {
> > +	/* lock: Protect structure fields */

Also, does this comment really make sense?  To properly document a lock
takes a bit more text, if you read this would it help out in
understanding the code any?

thanks,

greg k-h