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

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 01:21:40AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> 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.

It's easy for me to reject things that obviously do not apply :)

thanks,

greg k-h