Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:26:49 +0400 | | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] USB: gadget: storage_common: comments updated |
| |
Hello.
Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> Updated comment to describe why printing macros are needed even > thought they are copied form the composite.h. Also, made multiline > comments follow the coding standard.
> Signed-off-by: Michal Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@samsung.com>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/storage_common.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/storage_common.c > index 04c462f..557b119 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/storage_common.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/storage_common.c > @@ -84,14 +84,23 @@ > #define LWARN(lun, fmt, args...) dev_warn(&(lun)->dev, fmt, ## args) > #define LINFO(lun, fmt, args...) dev_info(&(lun)->dev, fmt, ## args) > > -/* Keep those macros in sync with thos in > - * include/linux/ubs/composite.h or else GCC will complain. If they > +/* > + * Keep those macros in sync with thos in
s/thos/those/ while at, please.
> + * include/linux/usb/composite.h or else GCC will complain. If they > * are identical (the same names of arguments, white spaces in the > * same places) GCC will allow redefinition otherwise (even if some > - * white space is removed or added) warning will be issued. No > - * checking if those symbols is defined is performed because warning > - * is desired when those macros were defined by someone else to mean > - * something else. */ > + * white space is removed or added) warning will be issued. > + * > + * Those macros are needed here because File Storage Gadget does not > + * include the composite.h header. For composite gadgets those macros > + * are redundant since composite.h is included any way. > + * > + * No checking if those symbols is defined is performed because ^^ are
> @@ -313,9 +322,12 @@ struct fsg_buffhd { > enum fsg_buffer_state state; > struct fsg_buffhd *next; > > - /* The NetChip 2280 is faster, and handles some protocol faults > - * better, if we don't submit any short bulk-out read requests. > - * So we will record the intended request length here. */ > + /* > + * The NetChip 2280 is faster, and handles some protocol > + * faults better, if we don't submit any short bulk-out read > + * requests. So we will record the intended request length > + * here.
Hm, why reformat the paragraph?
WBR, Sergei
|  |