On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 04:36:37PM +0530, Ravishankar wrote:
> struct unioxx5_subd_priv {
> int usp_iobase;
> - unsigned char usp_module_type[12]; /* 12 modules. each can be 70L
> - * or 73L
> - */
> - unsigned char usp_extra_data[12][4]; /* for saving previous written
> - * value for analog modules
> - */
> + /* 12 modules. each can be 70L or 73L */
> + unsigned char usp_module_type[12];
> +
> + /*for saving previous written value for analog modules */
> + unsigned char usp_extra_data[12][4];
> +
> +
>
I wouldn't comment on this except that it occurs in several places.
Don't introduce extra blank lines here. As a general rule we never
want two blank lines in a row (we have blank lines 3 here).
Also the original patch should have been redone instead of putting
this patch on top of the other. To redo a patch use the following
subject line:
[PATCH 7/7 v2] Staging: comedi: fix warning issue in unioxx5.c
Then after the signed off by line but infront of the patch put
three dashes and an explanation why it was redone:
---
v2: Dan Carpenter was whining and complaining about v1 like a
spoiled little tweenager.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
