On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:30:17AM +0800, hoshinomorimorimo@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Hoshinomori-Owari <hoshinomorimorimo@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Fix block comment at
> rtw_io.c:8:
> rtw_io.c:139:
> rtw_io.c:154:
>
> Remove not useful filename at
> rtw_io.c:9:
>
> Add a blank line after declarations
> rtw_io.c:147:
>
> Issue found by checkpatch.pl
>
> Signed-off-by: Hoshinomori-Owari <hoshinomorimorimo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c | 56 +++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c
> index 4d3c30ec93b5..6c46c6e295d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c
> @@ -4,26 +4,27 @@
> * Copyright(c) 2007 - 2011 Realtek Corporation. All rights reserved.
> *
> ******************************************************************************/
> -/*
> -
> -The purpose of rtw_io.c
> -
> -a. provides the API
> -
> -b. provides the protocol engine
> -
> -c. provides the software interface between caller and the hardware interface
> -
>
> -Compiler Flag Option:
> -
> -1. CONFIG_SDIO_HCI:
> - a. USE_SYNC_IRP: Only sync operations are provided.
> - b. USE_ASYNC_IRP:Both sync/async operations are provided.
> -
> -jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> -
> -*/
> +/*
> + *
> + *Purpose:
> + *
> + * a. provides the API
> + *
> + * b. provides the protocol engine
> + *
> + * c. provides the software interface between caller and the hardware interface
> + *
> + *
> + *Compiler Flag Option:
> + *
> + *1. CONFIG_SDIO_HCI:
> + * a. USE_SYNC_IRP: Only sync operations are provided.
> + * b. USE_ASYNC_IRP:Both sync/async operations are provided.
> + *
> + *jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> + *
> + */
>
> #include <drv_types.h>
> #include <rtw_debug.h>
> @@ -135,24 +136,25 @@ int rtw_init_io_priv(struct adapter *padapter, void (*set_intf_ops)(struct adapt
> return _SUCCESS;
> }
>
> -/*
> -* Increase and check if the continual_io_error of this @param dvobjprive is larger than MAX_CONTINUAL_IO_ERR
> -* @return true:
> -* @return false:
> -*/
> +/**
> + * Increase and check if the continual_io_error of this @param dvobjprive is larger than MAX_CONTINUAL_IO_ERR
> + * @return true:
> + * @return false:
> + */
> int rtw_inc_and_chk_continual_io_error(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj)
> {
> int ret = false;
> int value = atomic_inc_return(&dvobj->continual_io_error);
> +
> if (value > MAX_CONTINUAL_IO_ERR)
> ret = true;
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> -/*
> -* Set the continual_io_error of this @param dvobjprive to 0
> -*/
> +/**
> + * Set the continual_io_error of this @param dvobjprive to 0
> + */
> void rtw_reset_continual_io_error(struct dvobj_priv *dvobj)
> {
> atomic_set(&dvobj->continual_io_error, 0);
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:
- Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the
patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
merge issues that larger patches can cause.
- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the
section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
properly describe the change.
- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read
the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
look like.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
