Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:47:23PM +0200, Amaury Denoyelle wrote:
> > This patch fixes coding style errors reported by checkpatch.pl for
> > cb_pcidas64.c, about too long source code lines.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Amaury Denoyelle <amaury.denoyelle@gmail.com>
> > ---
> <snip>
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* adjusts the size of hardware fifo (which determines block size for dma xfers) */
> > +/* adjusts the size of hardware fifo
> > + * (which determines block size for dma xfers) */
> 
> This is not the style for multi-line comments. Please check CodingStyle
> in Documentation.
> 
> >  static int set_ai_fifo_size(struct comedi_device *dev, unsigned int num_samples)
> >  {
> <snip>	
> >  
> > @@ -1987,8 +1990,8 @@ static unsigned int get_divisor(unsigned int ns, unsigned int flags)
> >  
> >  /* utility function that rounds desired timing to an achievable time, and
> >   * sets cmd members appropriately.
> > - * adc paces conversions from master clock by dividing by (x + 3) where x is 24 bit number
> > - */
> > + * adc paces conversions from master clock by dividing by (x + 3) where x is
> > + * 24 bit number */
> same here
> 
> and when you are sending just one patch, you do not need to mention
> [Patch 1/1] in the subject. just mention [Patch]
> 
> regards
> sudip

Thanks for your review. I was aware of the coding style for multi-line comments, but I chose to follow the same convention already used in the source file.

I submit a new version where I respect the coding style in the comments I fixed. I editted only multi-line comments that were too long, in order to not have a messy patch. If you think it's better to be done, maybe I could submit a two-part patch.

regards,

-- 
Amaury Denoyelle