On Fri, 8 May 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:06:25PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
> > Fix the following coccicheck warning:
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
> > 'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
>
> That's not a
On 08/05/2020 10.16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:06:25PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
>> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>>
>> kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
>> 'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
>
> That's not a warning,
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:06:25PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
> 'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
That's not a warning, that's a broken cocinelle script, which if these
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 15:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2020 12:06:56 -0700
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > People describe changes as a "fix" all the time for stuff
> > that isn't an actual fix for a logic defect but is instead
> > an update to a particular style preference.
> >
>
On Thu, 07 May 2020 12:06:56 -0700
Joe Perches wrote:
> People describe changes as a "fix" all the time for stuff
> that isn't an actual fix for a logic defect but is instead
> an update to a particular style preference.
>
> Then the "fix" word causes the patch to be rather uselessly
> applied
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 14:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > > If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> > > if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> > > is no
On Thu, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700
Joe Perches wrote:
> > If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> > if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> > is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
> > an
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 13:30 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
> > > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we
> > > should
> > >
On 07/05/20 18:30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
>> > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
>> > pick it up...
>> >
>>
>>
On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
> > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
> > pick it up...
> >
>
> Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the
On Thu, 07 May 2020 12:17:36 +0100
Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 07/05/20 12:06, Jason Yan wrote:
> > Fix the following coccicheck warning:
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
> > 'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
> >
>
> It's perfectly
On 07/05/20 12:06, Jason Yan wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
> 'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
>
It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
as this is the second
Fix the following coccicheck warning:
kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
Signed-off-by: Jason Yan
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git
13 matches
Mail list logo
