On 5/16/20 5:11 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 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. >
OK, great. Thanks. -- ~Randy
