Re: [PATCH v3] staging: nvec: fix block comment style in nvec.c

[Thierry Reding]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 11:07:18PM +0100, Oskar Ray-Frayssinet wrote:
> > Fix block comment formatting to use * on subsequent lines
> > and */ on a separate line as required by kernel coding style.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oskar Ray-Frayssinet <rayfraytech@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > index e70fafc095f2..0e655f79ea4a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> > @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nvec_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
> >  			nvec_tx_set(nvec);
> >  			to_send = nvec->tx->data[0];
> >  			nvec->tx->pos = 1;
> > -			/* Delay ACK due to AP20 HW Bug
> > +			/* delay ACK due to AP20 HW Bug
> >  			 * do not replace by usleep_range
> >  			 */
> >  			udelay(33);
> > -- 
> > 2.43.0
> > 
> > 
> 
> This change is not what you documented is changing :(

Hm... this is the 8th version of this patch that I've seen.

I don't know why there was a flurry of these. The checkpatch warning
certainly isn't new, so maybe this was a new wave of janitors or
something? Or maybe people using AI agents to get into kernel
development. Not that it matters much, but it's not a pattern that I've
seen before.

Also, the fact that 7 out of the 8 versions came in after the first had
already landed in linux-next:

  29e79c66b3cc ("staging: nvec: fix block comment style in nvec_interrupt()")

suggests that people aren't using linux-next as their baseline. Do we
need to be stricter in this regard? Seems a bit wasteful for you to have
to spend so much time looking at duplicates, even though it seems like
your automation did a lot of the work.

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature