--- /dev/null
+From: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
+Subject: Improve fc_rport.c locking comment block
+References: 459142
+
+checkpatch.pl was complaining about having spaces
+after '*'s. It seemed to be a false positive. I split
+the comment block into two blocks and it resolved the
+ERROR.
+
+Signed-off-by: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
+Acked-by: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
+---
+
+ drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
+ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
+
+
+--- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c
++++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c
+@@ -18,20 +18,23 @@
+ */
+
+ /*
++ * RPORT GENERAL INFO
++ *
+ * This file contains all processing regarding fc_rports. It contains the
+ * rport state machine and does all rport interaction with the transport class.
+ * There should be no other places in libfc that interact directly with the
+ * transport class in regards to adding and deleting rports.
+ *
+ * fc_rport's represent N_Port's within the fabric.
++ */
++
++/*
++ * RPORT LOCKING
+ *
+- * rport locking notes:
+- *
+- * The rport should never hold the rport mutex and then lock the lport
+- * mutex. The rport's mutex is considered lesser than the lport's mutex, so
+- * the lport mutex can be held before locking the rport mutex, but not the
+- * other way around. See the comment block at the top of fc_lport.c for more
+- * details.
++ * The rport should never hold the rport mutex and then attempt to acquire
++ * either the lport or disc mutexes. The rport's mutex is considered lesser
++ * than both the lport's mutex and the disc mutex. Refer to fc_lport.c for
++ * more comments on the heirarchy.
+ *
+ * The locking strategy is similar to the lport's strategy. The lock protects
+ * the rport's states and is held and released by the entry points to the rport