16.05.2020 19:58, Randy Dunlap пишет: > On 5/16/20 9:50 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 16.05.2020 18:51, Randy Dunlap пишет: >>> On 5/16/20 8:36 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> diff --git a/block/partitions/efi.c b/block/partitions/efi.c >>>> index b64bfdd4326c..3af4660bc11f 100644 >>>> --- a/block/partitions/efi.c >>>> +++ b/block/partitions/efi.c >>>> @@ -621,6 +621,14 @@ static int find_valid_gpt(struct parsed_partitions *state, gpt_header **gpt, >>>> if (!good_agpt && force_gpt) >>>> good_agpt = is_gpt_valid(state, lastlba, &agpt, &aptes); >>>> >>>> + /* The force_gpt_sector is used by NVIDIA Tegra partition parser in >>>> + * order to convey a non-standard location of the GPT entry for lookup. >>>> + * By default force_gpt_sector is set to 0 and has no effect. >>>> + */ >>> >>> Please fix the multi-line comment format as described in >>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst. >>> >>>> + if (!good_agpt && force_gpt && state->force_gpt_sector) >>>> + good_agpt = is_gpt_valid(state, state->force_gpt_sector, >>>> + &agpt, &aptes); >>>> + >>>> /* The obviously unsuccessful case */ >>>> if (!good_pgpt && !good_agpt) >>>> goto fail; >>> >>> thanks. >>> >> >> Hello Randy, >> >> I know that it's not a proper kernel-style formatting, but that's the >> style used by the whole efi.c source code and I wanted to maintain the >> same style, for consistency. Of course I can change to a proper style if >> it's more desirable than the consistency. Thank you for the comment! >> > > too bad. Sorry to hear that. > It should have been "fixed" much earlier. > It's probably too late now. Actually, I now see that there is a mix of different comment styles in the efi.c code. So it should be fine to use the proper style, I'll change it in v6. I don't think it's too late, it's never late to make a correction :) There are some other coding style problems in the efi.c that won't hurt to fix, I may take a look at fixing them later on.
