Skip to contentSkip to conversation

arm64: lib: xor-neon: remove redundant filename comment

PATCH In review Josh Law 3 participants 5 messages Mar 1 – Mar 3 arm64

lore
Share & tools
lore

Josh Law

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 arm64: lib: xor-neon: remove redundant filename comment

The filename in the header comment is redundant and not recommended by Linux kernel coding style.

Signed-off-by Josh Law <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm64/lib/xor-neon.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
arch/arm64/lib/xor-neon.c +0 -1
index 8fffebfa17b2..c65b44a8f134 100644
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 /*
- * arch/arm64/lib/xor-neon.c
  *
  * Authors: Jackie Liu <[email protected]>
  * Copyright (C) 2018,Tianjin KYLIN Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
author
#1 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 arm64: lib: xor-neon: fix pointer spacing for __restrict

Fix coding style error where 'foo * bar' should be 'foo *bar' for the __restrict qualifier.

Signed-off-by Josh Law <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm64/lib/xor-neon.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
arch/arm64/lib/xor-neon.c +26 -26
index c65b44a8f134..cdf6ae923e1b 100644
@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <asm/neon-intrinsics.h>
 
-static void xor_arm64_neon_2(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2)
+static void xor_arm64_neon_2(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;

@@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ static void xor_arm64_neon_2(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
 	} while (--lines > 0);
 }
 
-static void xor_arm64_neon_3(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p3)
+static void xor_arm64_neon_3(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p3)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;

@@ -72,10 +72,10 @@ static void xor_arm64_neon_3(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
 	} while (--lines > 0);
 }
 
-static void xor_arm64_neon_4(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p3,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p4)
+static void xor_arm64_neon_4(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p3,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p4)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;

@@ -117,11 +117,11 @@ static void xor_arm64_neon_4(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
 	} while (--lines > 0);
 }
 
-static void xor_arm64_neon_5(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p3,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p4,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p5)
+static void xor_arm64_neon_5(unsigned long bytes, unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p3,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p4,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p5)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;

@@ -191,9 +191,9 @@ static inline uint64x2_t eor3(uint64x2_t p, uint64x2_t q, uint64x2_t r)
 }
 
 static void xor_arm64_eor3_3(unsigned long bytes,
-	unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p3)
+	unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p3)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;

@@ -226,10 +226,10 @@ static void xor_arm64_eor3_3(unsigned long bytes,
 }
 
 static void xor_arm64_eor3_4(unsigned long bytes,
-	unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p3,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p4)
+	unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p3,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p4)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;

@@ -270,11 +270,11 @@ static void xor_arm64_eor3_4(unsigned long bytes,
 }
 
 static void xor_arm64_eor3_5(unsigned long bytes,
-	unsigned long * __restrict p1,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p2,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p3,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p4,
-	const unsigned long * __restrict p5)
+	unsigned long *__restrict p1,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p2,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p3,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p4,
+	const unsigned long *__restrict p5)
 {
 	uint64_t *dp1 = (uint64_t *)p1;
 	uint64_t *dp2 = (uint64_t *)p2;
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
#2 lore raw
In reply to Josh Law
Quoted 1 line · Josh Law

The filename in the header comment is redundant and not recommended by Linux kernel coding style.

I have a pretty big series pending that changes this file in meaninful ways. But even without that please never send standalone patches for trivial cleanups like this, only do them if you have to touch the code for another reason anyway.

author
#3 lore raw

2 Mar 2026 13:52:07 Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>:

Quoted 7 lines · Josh Law
Quoted 1 line

The filename in the header comment is redundant and not recommended by Linux kernel coding style.

I have a pretty big series pending that changes this file in meaninful ways.  But even without that please never send standalone patches for trivial cleanups like this, only do them if you have to touch the code for another reason anyway.

Hello Cristoph, I am sorry, again
Since I am new to Linux kernel development
I sometimes make mistakes, it's normal.
Patch 2 should be more relevant, all of those I got under checkpatch.pl

V/R
V/R

Josh law

maintainer
#4 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Josh Law

2 Mar 2026 13:52:07 Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>:

Quoted 8 lines · Josh Law
Quoted 2 lines

The filename in the header comment is redundant and not recommended by Linux kernel coding style.

I have a pretty big series pending that changes this file in meaninful ways.  But even without that please never send standalone patches for trivial cleanups like this, only do them if you have to touch the code for another reason anyway.

Quoted 4 lines

Hello Cristoph, I am sorry, again
Since I am new to Linux kernel development
I sometimes make mistakes, it's normal.
Patch 2 should be more relevant, all of those I got under checkpatch.pl

Patch 2 is not relevant either. Unnecessary change that will make things harder to backport, conflict with other changes.

Please don't run checkpatch.pl on existing code, only on new patches before they are upstreamed.

Signature · 1 line
Catalin