Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:27489 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751135AbaFELdN (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:33:13 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Michal Kazior CC: Ben Greear , linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] ath10k: provide firmware crash info via debugfs. References: <1401812719-25061-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:33:06 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Michal Kazior's message of "Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:04:57 +0200") Message-ID: <87y4xboakt.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20140605_133317_696170_D45686A8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michal Kazior writes: >> + dbufp = dbuf.next; >> + if (dbufp == dbg_hdr.dbuf) { >> + /* It is a circular buffer it seems, bail if next >> + * is head >> + */ > > Hmm, we seem to be mixing comment styles in ath10k now I guess (this > applies to other instances of multi-line comments in your patch). What > multi-line comment style should we really be using in ath10k? Kalle? Yeah, checkpatch is really annoying here and started to use that different style of multiline comments. I just disabled that check on my own setup. Personally I don't really care, but I guess we should switch to use this "new" style. -- Kalle Valo