Hi Rahul,
On 05/07/2023 09:40, Rahul Singh wrote:
On 4 Jul 2023, at 4:51 pm, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
On 29.06.2023 16:52, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 29 Jun 2023, at 11:06, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> wrote:
In the file `xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu-v3.c' there are a few occurrences
here you use a different character to enclose the file path (` vs ‘) may I
suggest to
use only (‘)?
of nested '//' character sequences inside C-style comment blocks, which violate
Rule 3.1.
The patch aims to resolve those by replacing the nested comments with
equivalent constructs that do not violate the rule.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
You are missing the “---“ here, meaning that the lines below are part of the
commit message and I’m sure you don’t want that.
Also here, may I suggest to use this commit title instead?
“xen/arm: smmuv3: Fix violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 3.1”
Just to mention it: Personally I'm averse to such double subject prefixes.
Why would (here) "xen/smmuv3: " not be sufficient (and entirely unambiguous)?
With the changes suggested above.
There are conflicting suggestions about the title. So it is not clear to
me which one you are referring to.
I will assume you were happy either way and so picked Luca's proposal
and committed.
Acked-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.si...@arm.com>
Regards,
Rahul
--
Julien Grall
