Hi--
On 6/11/23 03:53, Franziska Naepelt wrote:
> Fix the following checkpatch issue:
> - WARNING: Block comments use a trailing */ on a separate line
>
> Signed-off-by: Franziska Naepelt <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> - Revert SPDX change to address only one logical change
> ---
> crypto/fcrypt.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/crypto/fcrypt.c b/crypto/fcrypt.c
> index 95a16e88899b..e9e119bab784 100644
> --- a/crypto/fcrypt.c
> +++ b/crypto/fcrypt.c
> @@ -303,7 +303,8 @@ static int fcrypt_setkey(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, const u8 *key, unsigned int key
>
> #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64 /* the 64-bit version can also be used for 32-bit
> * kernels - it seems to be faster but the code is
> - * larger */
> + * larger
> + */
The comment doesn't begin with a /* on a line by itself either.
checkpatch isn't always correct.
Maybe it isn't in this case.
I would either make it a correct multi-line comment or not make a change
at all here.
>
> u64 k; /* k holds all 56 non-parity bits */
>
>
> base-commit: 9561de3a55bed6bdd44a12820ba81ec416e705a7
--
~Randy
Am So., 11. Juni 2023 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi--
>
> On 6/11/23 03:53, Franziska Naepelt wrote:
> > Fix the following checkpatch issue:
> > - WARNING: Block comments use a trailing */ on a separate line
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Franziska Naepelt <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Revert SPDX change to address only one logical change
> > ---
> > crypto/fcrypt.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/crypto/fcrypt.c b/crypto/fcrypt.c
> > index 95a16e88899b..e9e119bab784 100644
> > --- a/crypto/fcrypt.c
> > +++ b/crypto/fcrypt.c
> > @@ -303,7 +303,8 @@ static int fcrypt_setkey(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, const u8 *key, unsigned int key
> >
> > #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64 /* the 64-bit version can also be used for 32-bit
> > * kernels - it seems to be faster but the code is
> > - * larger */
> > + * larger
> > + */
>
> The comment doesn't begin with a /* on a line by itself either.
>
> checkpatch isn't always correct.
> Maybe it isn't in this case.
>
> I would either make it a correct multi-line comment or not make a change
> at all here.
>
> >
> > u64 k; /* k holds all 56 non-parity bits */
> >
> >
> > base-commit: 9561de3a55bed6bdd44a12820ba81ec416e705a7
>
> --
> ~Randy
Hi Randy,
thanks for the heads up. I'll leave it for now and won't make a change.
Thanks, Franziska