On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:00:11AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can
> > > push?
> > > Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other
> > > ones.
> >
> > Hello Rodrigo,
> > The checkpatch warning is associated with the long "make coccicheck ..."
> > command
> > in the commit message. It is not part of the code, so is should not be
> > carried
> > forward into the code base.
> > If you still want me to correct it, I will need to split it into two lines
> > which
> > I think still violates the commit description guidelines.
>
> This part I would just ignore or fix myself while merging. But the next one
> about
> the parenthesis alignment need to be fixed in the code so we need another
> version.
> Since we try to avoid touching the code between CI and merge.
I am sorry, but I am unable to locate the "second checkpatch complaint" you are
referring to. I have received only the following from the checkpatch robot:
== Summary ==
Error: dim checkpatch failed
4c95e9b71212 drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for scan_nonprivbb debug
attributes
-:21: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description
(prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
#21:
make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch
COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 22 lines checked
33d68a01cad3 drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug
attributes
-:21: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description
(prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
#21:
make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch
COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 18 lines checked
===============================
>
> Then, since you need to change that, while changing that, also please break
> the coccinelle line in the commit msg.
>
> I'd appreciate to have the patch for the pxp as well :)
Sure. As mentioned in the other thread, I am looking into it and would submit a
patch accordingly.
Thank you,
./drv
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Rodrigo.
>
>
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > ./drv
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL,
> > > > > "0x%llx\n");
> > > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL,
> > > > > "0x%llx\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > > > > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu
> > > > > *vgpu)
> > > > > &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > > > > debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644,
> > > > > vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > > > > - debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > - &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > + debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > > > > + &vgpu_status_fops);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /**
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> >
