On 5/16/20 5:11 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:

16.05.2020 19:58, Randy Dunlap пишет:

quoted

On 5/16/20 9:50 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:

quoted

16.05.2020 18:51, Randy Dunlap пишет:

quoted

On 5/16/20 8:36 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/block/partitions/efi.c b/block/partitions/efi.c
index b64bfdd4326c..3af4660bc11f 100644
--- a/block/partitions/efi.c
+++ b/block/partitions/efi.c

@@ -621,6 +621,14 @@ static int find_valid_gpt(struct parsed_partitions *state, gpt_header **gpt,
         if (!good_agpt && force_gpt)
                 good_agpt = is_gpt_valid(state, lastlba, &agpt, &aptes);
 
+	/* The force_gpt_sector is used by NVIDIA Tegra partition parser in
+	 * order to convey a non-standard location of the GPT entry for lookup.
+	 * By default force_gpt_sector is set to 0 and has no effect.
+	 */

Please fix the multi-line comment format as described in
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.

quoted

+	if (!good_agpt && force_gpt && state->force_gpt_sector)
+		good_agpt = is_gpt_valid(state, state->force_gpt_sector,
+					 &agpt, &aptes);
+
         /* The obviously unsuccessful case */
         if (!good_pgpt && !good_agpt)
                 goto fail;

thanks.

Hello Randy,

I know that it's not a proper kernel-style formatting, but that's the
style used by the whole efi.c source code and I wanted to maintain the
same style, for consistency. Of course I can change to a proper style if
it's more desirable than the consistency. Thank you for the comment!

too bad. Sorry to hear that.
It should have been "fixed" much earlier.
It's probably too late now.

Actually, I now see that there is a mix of different comment styles in
the efi.c code. So it should be fine to use the proper style, I'll
change it in v6.

I don't think it's too late, it's never late to make a correction :)
There are some other coding style problems in the efi.c that won't hurt
to fix, I may take a look at fixing them later on.

OK, great. Thanks.

-- 
~Randy