Looks good otherwise Reviewed-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derr...@intel.com>
On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 21:28 +0100, David Kozub wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:50:08PM +0100, David Kozub wrote: > > > This should make no change in functionality. > > > The formatting changes were triggered by checkpatch.pl. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Kozub <z...@linux.fjfi.cvut.cz> > > > Reviewed-by: Scott Bauer <sba...@plzdonthack.me> > > > --- > > > block/sed-opal.c | 19 +++++++++++-------- > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/block/sed-opal.c b/block/sed-opal.c > > > index e0de4dd448b3..c882a193e162 100644 > > > --- a/block/sed-opal.c > > > +++ b/block/sed-opal.c > > > @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@ > > > * > > > * This program is distributed in the hope it will be useful, but WITHOUT > > > * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or > > > - * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License > > > for > > > - * more details. > > > + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License > > > + * for more details. > > > > What exactly is the fix here? > > > > If we want to fix the licence boilerplate we should switch it to an > > SPDX tag instead. > > > > Otherwise this looks fine to me. > > I thought checkpatch.pl -f block/sed-opal.c complained about the line > being too long. But when I try that again now (with the original version), > it does not complain. So I probably saw a ghost. > > I'll undo this change.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
