Re: [PATCH] USB: gadget: storage_common: comments updated

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com>]

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