From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90EA3BF67D; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774881003; cv=none; b=JwPmjWXF1QI44eu1jh2nWwG8NsNW77kjYYvbWmvwjVSg34jBHlxrwW7EV9Nx0XrtbIPMn4uRh2iAN3yvDFBYymiOm44iXZd4bxFpM74a6kNEOdl05tyxiSZMOO2+wZ7vRU2WR+QPlopGMDEHoJfPJZGSRyK5SsHz5d7RQHR+puM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774881003; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fpizcXYAwVqNmPJral1RNKXefb/SE1t5Xw4/QpJoDa4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=O/rFVei693061ryW3Iu4BMI/oKoAKlHu1xEuGhFAVwr+SlllOFe9Aro8E6EH0BX2q07MzTWwQ2ei4x28BBuLTS7DetXCBPN4wOEOG5h0nmlQ/A+1ocl8EsrypZz8Uyc9l8mLf2tnidI//1soxfMFrJf4gmorIENzTX8Umhyne+o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=iS6wl7ye; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="iS6wl7ye" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0CEEC19423; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:30:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1774881003; bh=fpizcXYAwVqNmPJral1RNKXefb/SE1t5Xw4/QpJoDa4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=iS6wl7ye0iUPDLUG1A8FfGJ7KMSdJmniAZwmqmrnCvUIIrjrhSPOJpvWeCbHnc80H dHR5JetN0rmzl0qY6/Kd6Mk4nCPeAsGRy3lJaZjxLuXqXVF3VqVWUguQuzOdL7GZrk cSqiPULGz9KpHUjKHHkAL++/YoCYsotc9op7T0Ng= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:29:59 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Thierry Reding Cc: Oskar Ray-Frayssinet , marvin24@gmx.de, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: nvec: fix block comment style in nvec.c Message-ID: <2026033038-spectacle-judo-37ff@gregkh> References: <2026030929-uncheck-reclining-315b@gregkh> <20260309220718.6475-1-rayfraytech@gmail.com> <2026031833-pampers-steed-4804@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 01:21:40AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 11:07:18PM +0100, Oskar Ray-Frayssinet wrote: > > > Fix block comment formatting to use * on subsequent lines > > > and */ on a separate line as required by kernel coding style. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oskar Ray-Frayssinet > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > > index e70fafc095f2..0e655f79ea4a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c > > > @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev) > > > nvec_tx_set(nvec); > > > to_send = nvec->tx->data[0]; > > > nvec->tx->pos = 1; > > > - /* Delay ACK due to AP20 HW Bug > > > + /* delay ACK due to AP20 HW Bug > > > * do not replace by usleep_range > > > */ > > > udelay(33); > > > -- > > > 2.43.0 > > > > > > > > > > This change is not what you documented is changing :( > > Hm... this is the 8th version of this patch that I've seen. > > I don't know why there was a flurry of these. The checkpatch warning > certainly isn't new, so maybe this was a new wave of janitors or > something? Or maybe people using AI agents to get into kernel > development. Not that it matters much, but it's not a pattern that I've > seen before. > > Also, the fact that 7 out of the 8 versions came in after the first had > already landed in linux-next: > > 29e79c66b3cc ("staging: nvec: fix block comment style in nvec_interrupt()") > > suggests that people aren't using linux-next as their baseline. Do we > need to be stricter in this regard? Seems a bit wasteful for you to have > to spend so much time looking at duplicates, even though it seems like > your automation did a lot of the work. It's easy for me to reject things that obviously do not apply :) thanks, greg k-h