On 01/10/2017 06:36 PM, Kershner, David A wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Abdul Rauf [mailto:abdulraufmujahid@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:24 PM >> To: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jkc@xxxxxxxxxx; *S-Par-Maintainer >> <SParMaintainer@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [PATCH] staging: unisys: fix checkpatch block comments warning > This patch has the same subject line as the previous patch? Which one > should we use? Or can you make the names unique? > > David Kershner > >> Fix the following warnings: >> Block comments should align the * on each line >> >> Signed-off-by: Abdul Rauf <abdulraufmujahid@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c >> b/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c >> index 336af52d43d7..4e630ea527e8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c >> @@ -1409,7 +1409,7 @@ parahotplug_process_message(struct >> controlvm_message *inmsg) >> * >> * devices are automatically enabled at >> * initialization. >> - */ >> + */ >> parahotplug_request_kickoff(req); >> controlvm_respond_physdev_changestate >> (&inmsg->hdr, >> -- >> 2.11.0 you should use both of them. I am sending both again by changing their names. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
