Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2008 23:02:34 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ---
>> include/asm-generic/pgtable.h | 14 +++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/pgtable.h
>> @@ -201,9 +201,11 @@
>> unsigned long addr,
>> pte_t *ptep)
>> {
>> - /* Get the current pte state, but zero it out to make it
>> - non-present, preventing the hardware from asynchronously
>> - updating it. */
>> + /*
>> + * Get the current pte state, but zero it out to make it
>> + * non-present, preventing the hardware from asynchronously
>> + * updating it.
>> + */
>>
>
> Since there is debate over whether winged comments are a feature, I'm not
> sure
> this can be termed a "fix".
>
I don't feel all that strongly about it in this case. I'm not a huge
fan of winged style for inline comments like this, but it is consistent
with the rest of the file, and the comment is (just) long enough to make
it not look completely stupid.
>> {
>> - /* The pte is non-present, so there's no hardware state to
>> - preserve. */
>> + /*
>> + * The pte is non-present, so there's no hardware state to
>> + * preserve.
>> + */
>> set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, pte);
>> }
>>
>
> This will fit in one line, no?
>
Yes, but changing it would mean going to the effort of regenerating the
patch.
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
