Make the logging macro uses clearer and fix a whitespace defect.
Joe Perches (2):
scsi: pm8001: Convert pm8001_printk to pm8001_info
scsi: pm8001: Fix misindentation
drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_init.c | 32 +++
drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c | 4 ++--
drivers
Use the more common logging style.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
---
drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_init.c | 12 ++--
drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c | 4 ++--
drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001
kernel robot reported a misindentation of a goto.
Fix it.
At the same time, use a temporary for a repeated entry in the same block
to reduce visual noise.
Reported-by: kernel test robot
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
---
drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_init.c | 20 ++--
1 file changed
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:23 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > Reduce code duplication and generic neatening of logging macros
>
> Applied to 5.11/scsi-staging, thanks!
Thanks.
The kernel robot reported an indentation defect here so I will send
a couple more patches on top of this.
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 01:14 +, Arulprabhu Ponnusamy (arulponn)
wrote:
> Looks good.
I'm not sure why this look good. It looks very odd to me.
> On 11/20/20, 5:38 PM, "Karan Tilak Kumar" wrote:
>
> Replacing shost_printk with FNIC_MAIN_DBG so that
> these log messages are controlle
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 18:05 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> (minus all of these lists, except LKML, CBL, and ACPI)
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:32:51 -0800 Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:42 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> For this old driver we should try to limit patches to bug fixing and
> infrastructure updates.
It might be useful to add a new "S:" entry type to these old drivers
as supported/maintained/obsolete may not really be appropriate.
How about so
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 20:11 +, David Howells wrote:
> Organise the security information in the rxrpc_connection struct to use a
> union to allow for different data for different security classes.
Is there a known future purpose to this?
> diff --git a/net/rxrpc/ar-internal.h b/net/rxrpc/ar-in
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 20:11 +, David Howells wrote:
> Organise the security information in the rxrpc_connection struct to use a
> union to allow for different data for different security classes.
Is there a known future purpose to this?
> diff --git a/net/rxrpc/ar-internal.h b/net/rxrpc/ar-in
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:54 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature
> styles.
I think this proposed change is unnecessary.
> This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags,
> e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 sho
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 16:10 +, David Howells wrote:
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > > call->unmarshall++;
> > > +
> > > + fallthrough;
> >
> > My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;
> >
&g
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:21 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple break/goto
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 09:18 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > preamble in the commit log. For the ongoing effort of a fixer
> > producing one or two fixes a release the
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> preamble in the commit log. For the ongoing effort of a fixer producing
> one or two fixes a release the use of 'treewide:' does not seem appropriate.
>
> It would be be
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 18:29 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch warns if logical continuations are placed at the
> start of a line and not at the end of previous line.
>
> E.g., running checkpatch on commit 3485507fc272 ("staging:
> bcm2835-camera: Reduce length of enum names")
(removing almost all the cc: lists and leaving scsi and lkml)
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 10:02 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 09:18 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating co
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:33 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> > But provably correct conversions IMO _should_ be done and IMO churn
> > considerations should generally have less importance.
[]
> Moreover, the patch review workload for skill
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> using tools like checkpatch
It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a trivial
line-by-line parser and it has no concept of c
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:33 -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 11/21/20 9:10 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 08:50 -0800, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > A difficult part of automating commits is composing the subsystem
> > > preamble in the commit log. For th
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 16:40 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch warns if logical continuations are placed at the
> start of a line and not at the end of previous line.
>
> E.g., running checkpatch on commit 3485507fc272 ("staging:
> bcm2835-camera: Reduce length of enum names")
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 16:40 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch warns if logical continuations are placed at the
> start of a line and not at the end of previous line.
>
> E.g., running checkpatch on commit 3485507fc272 ("staging:
> bcm2835-camera: Reduce length of enum names")
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 00:04 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/21/20 8:50 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > What about moving the default to the end if the case, which is more
> > > common anyways:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 00:04 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/21/20 8:50 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > What about moving the default to the end if the case, which is more
> > > common anyways:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 02:34 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, checkpatch warns if logical continuations are placed at the
> start of a line and not at the end of previous line.
>
> E.g., running checkpatch on commit 3485507fc272 ("staging:
> bcm2835-camera: Reduce length of enum names")
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 21:47 +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> Provide fix option to INCLUDE_LINUX check to replace asm
> includes.
>
> Macros of type:
> #include
>
> are corrected to:
> #include
[]
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -5468,8 +5468,11 @@ sub proces
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 10:50 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:36:04PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> > by explicitly adding a break statement instead of letting the code fall
> > through to the
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 14:17 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/20/20 7:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> > by explicitly adding a break statement instead of letting the code fall
> > through to the next case.
> >
>
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 14:17 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/20/20 7:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> > by explicitly adding a break statement instead of letting the code fall
> > through to the next case.
> >
>
701 - 800 of 13813 matches
Mail list logo
