On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 08:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > When running checkpatch.pl against my latest patch set, I hit what I think
> > are
> > two false positives. Here are the related lines:
> >
> > +static inline void
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:37:47AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > When running checkpatch.pl against my latest patch set, I hit what I think
> > are
> > two false positives. Here are the related lines:
> >
> > +static inline void
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> When running checkpatch.pl against my latest patch set, I hit what I think are
> two false positives. Here are the related lines:
>
> +static inline void flush_cache_pmem(void __pmem *addr, size_t size)
> +{
> + if
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
When running checkpatch.pl against my latest patch set, I hit what I think are
two false positives. Here are the related lines:
+static inline void flush_cache_pmem(void __pmem *addr, size_t size)
+{
+ if
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:37:47AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
When running checkpatch.pl against my latest patch set, I hit what I think
are
two false positives. Here are the related lines:
+static inline void
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 08:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:01 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
When running checkpatch.pl against my latest patch set, I hit what I think
are
two false positives. Here are the related lines:
+static inline void flush_cache_pmem(void
6 matches
Mail list logo
