On 01/10/2017 06:36 PM, Kershner, David A wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abdul Rauf [mailto:abdulraufmuja...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:24 PM
>> To: gre...@linuxfoundation.org; j...@redhat.com; *S-Par-Maintainer
>> <sparmaintai...@unisys.com>
>> Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org
>> 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 <abdulraufmuja...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> 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
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
