From 72c8a89ad2e4de18849674f30589baa5ebb4fbc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oliver Hartkopp Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:35:25 +0200 Subject: can: bcm: use CAN frame instead of can_frame in comments can_frame is the name of the struct can_frame which is not meant in the corrected comments. Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde --- net/can/bcm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/can/bcm.c b/net/can/bcm.c index 17fb7967f8ca..83aa6cf61de9 100644 --- a/net/can/bcm.c +++ b/net/can/bcm.c @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL"); MODULE_AUTHOR("Oliver Hartkopp "); MODULE_ALIAS("can-proto-2"); -/* easy access to can_frame payload */ +/* easy access to CAN frame payload */ static inline u64 GET_U64(const struct can_frame *cp) { return *(u64 *)cp->data; @@ -305,13 +305,13 @@ static void bcm_send_to_user(struct bcm_op *op, struct bcm_msg_head *head, memcpy(skb_put(skb, sizeof(*head)), head, sizeof(*head)); if (head->nframes) { - /* can_frames starting here */ + /* CAN frames starting here */ firstframe = (struct can_frame *)skb_tail_pointer(skb); memcpy(skb_put(skb, datalen), frames, datalen); /* - * the BCM uses the can_dlc-element of the can_frame + * the BCM uses the can_dlc-element of the CAN frame * structure for internal purposes. This is only * relevant for updates that are generated by the * BCM, where nframes is 1 @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ static void bcm_rx_cmp_to_index(struct bcm_op *op, unsigned int index, return; } - /* do a real check in can_frame data section */ + /* do a real check in CAN frame data section */ if ((GET_U64(&op->frames[index]) & GET_U64(rxdata)) != (GET_U64(&op->frames[index]) & GET_U64(&op->last_frames[index]))) { @@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ static void bcm_rx_cmp_to_index(struct bcm_op *op, unsigned int index, } if (op->flags & RX_CHECK_DLC) { - /* do a real check in can_frame dlc */ + /* do a real check in CAN frame dlc */ if (rxdata->can_dlc != (op->last_frames[index].can_dlc & BCM_CAN_DLC_MASK)) { bcm_rx_update_and_send(op, &op->last_frames[index], @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart bcm_rx_timeout_handler(struct hrtimer *hrtimer) /* if user wants to be informed, when cyclic CAN-Messages come back */ if ((op->flags & RX_ANNOUNCE_RESUME) && op->last_frames) { - /* clear received can_frames to indicate 'nothing received' */ + /* clear received CAN frames to indicate 'nothing received' */ memset(op->last_frames, 0, op->nframes * CFSIZ); } @@ -840,7 +840,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, if (!ifindex) return -ENODEV; - /* check nframes boundaries - we need at least one can_frame */ + /* check nframes boundaries - we need at least one CAN frame */ if (msg_head->nframes < 1 || msg_head->nframes > MAX_NFRAMES) return -EINVAL; @@ -851,14 +851,14 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, /* update existing BCM operation */ /* - * Do we need more space for the can_frames than currently + * Do we need more space for the CAN frames than currently * allocated? -> This is a _really_ unusual use-case and * therefore (complexity / locking) it is not supported. */ if (msg_head->nframes > op->nframes) return -E2BIG; - /* update can_frames content */ + /* update CAN frames content */ for (i = 0; i < msg_head->nframes; i++) { err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)&op->frames[i], msg, CFSIZ); @@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, op->can_id = msg_head->can_id; - /* create array for can_frames and copy the data */ + /* create array for CAN frames and copy the data */ if (msg_head->nframes > 1) { op->frames = kmalloc(msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL); @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ static int bcm_tx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, if (op->flags & STARTTIMER) { hrtimer_cancel(&op->timer); - /* spec: send can_frame when starting timer */ + /* spec: send CAN frame when starting timer */ op->flags |= TX_ANNOUNCE; } @@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, /* update existing BCM operation */ /* - * Do we need more space for the can_frames than currently + * Do we need more space for the CAN frames than currently * allocated? -> This is a _really_ unusual use-case and * therefore (complexity / locking) it is not supported. */ @@ -1023,7 +1023,7 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, return -E2BIG; if (msg_head->nframes) { - /* update can_frames content */ + /* update CAN frames content */ err = memcpy_from_msg((u8 *)op->frames, msg, msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ); if (err < 0) @@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, op->nframes = msg_head->nframes; if (msg_head->nframes > 1) { - /* create array for can_frames and copy the data */ + /* create array for CAN frames and copy the data */ op->frames = kmalloc(msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL); if (!op->frames) { @@ -1056,7 +1056,7 @@ static int bcm_rx_setup(struct bcm_msg_head *msg_head, struct msghdr *msg, return -ENOMEM; } - /* create and init array for received can_frames */ + /* create and init array for received CAN frames */ op->last_frames = kzalloc(msg_head->nframes * CFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL); if (!op->last_frames) { @@ -1327,7 +1327,7 @@ static int bcm_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size) break; case TX_SEND: - /* we need exactly one can_frame behind the msg head */ + /* we need exactly one CAN frame behind the msg head */ if ((msg_head.nframes != 1) || (size != CFSIZ + MHSIZ)) ret = -EINVAL; else -- cgit