Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] tty: tty_jobctrl: Fix coding style issues of block comments

[Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>]

On 06. 04. 21, 13:24, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> Fix coding style issues of block comments, reported by checkpatch.pl.
> Besides, do some expression optimization for the sentenses.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiaofei Tan <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>
> ---
>   drivers/tty/tty_jobctrl.c | 16 ++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_jobctrl.c b/drivers/tty/tty_jobctrl.c
> index 86070f7..7003b6b 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_jobctrl.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_jobctrl.c
> @@ -204,8 +204,10 @@ int tty_signal_session_leader(struct tty_struct *tty, int exit_session)
>   			spin_lock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
>   			if (p->signal->tty == tty) {
>   				p->signal->tty = NULL;
> -				/* We defer the dereferences outside fo
> -				   the tasklist lock */
> +				/*
> +				 * We defer the dereferences outside of
> +				 * the tasklist lock period

:). No, I meant "period" as this punctuation mark: .

> +				 */
>   				refs++;
>   			}
>   			if (!p->signal->leader) {
> @@ -328,9 +330,11 @@ void disassociate_ctty(int on_exit)
>    */
>   void no_tty(void)
>   {
> -	/* FIXME: Review locking here. The tty_lock never covered any race
> -	   between a new association and proc_clear_tty but possible we need
> -	   to protect against this anyway */
> +	/*
> +	 * FIXME: Review locking here. The tty_lock never covered any race
> +	 * between a new association and proc_clear_tty but possibly we need
> +	 * to protect against this period anyway

The same here.

> +	 */
>   	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>   
>   	disassociate_ctty(0);
> @@ -536,7 +540,7 @@ static int tiocgsid(struct tty_struct *tty, struct tty_struct *real_tty, pid_t _
>   	/*
>   	 * (tty == real_tty) is a cheap way of
>   	 * testing if the tty is NOT a master pty.
> -	*/
> +	 */
>   	if (tty == real_tty && current->signal->tty != real_tty)
>   		return -ENOTTY;
>   
> 


-- 
js
suse labs