On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug macros
everywhere, and they all check a #define'd mask to see
On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
is cleaner.
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 21:16 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
That's a task (of many) I've
On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve
lustre_error/lustre_debug?
The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's
at least misleading unless you completely understand the
code.
Or you know, you might take the
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:25 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve
lustre_error/lustre_debug?
The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's
at least misleading unless you completely
, 2015 7:36 PM
To: Drokin, Oleg
Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org;
kernel-janit...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Julia
Lawall; hpdd-disc...@ml01.01.org; lustre-de...@lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet
On May 22, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 21:16 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
Removal of lustre-added typedefs is worthwhile, actually.
I scraped the surface some time ago, but could not complete it back then.
On May 21, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Michael Shuey wrote:
I've been killing off a *lot* of checkpatch warnings, and I'm
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
[]
diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
[]
@@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_console_error(int rc, lnet_nid_t peer_nid,
switch (rc) {
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
[]
diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
[]
@@ -99,38 +99,42 @@
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 18:04 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug macros
everywhere, and they all check a #define'd mask to see if they should fire,
and the behavior is
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 17:47 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings? Most of what remains are
don't introduce new typedefs warnings - should these be removed as well,
or am I safe to leave these?
I'm personally not a big fan of non-enum typedefs unless
the
Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
Signed-off-by: Mike Shuey sh...@purdue.edu
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c| 69 ++-
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/api-ni.c | 18 --
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/config.c |2 +-
14 matches
Mail list logo
