Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230606111042.96855-1-franziska.naepelt@gmail.com>
 <20230611105331.16570-1-franziska.naepelt@gmail.com> <1c00f4aa-e696-a071-68a7-cdd62d8ba894@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <1c00f4aa-e696-a071-68a7-cdd62d8ba894@infradead.org>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Franziska_N=C3=A4pelt?= 
        <franziska.naepelt@googlemail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:23:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAUT3iN3fxN3OE5XB5H1C4xNwo91dF9QMmhDiviHmbwaD1KrVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: fcrypt: Fix block comment
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bagasdotme@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Am So., 11. Juni 2023 um 16:56 Uhr schrieb Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>:
>
> 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 <franziska.naepelt@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 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