[PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can only be true / false values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice to have data type as 'bool' in place of the 'unsigned int'. Moreover,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

Hi Thomas, On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, wrote: > > From: John Zhao > > > > Variable

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

Subject and commit message have been updated due for typo. This patch is based on the tip of linux-pm-cpuild branch. Thanks On 2018-04-10 04:51 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can only be

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: > > On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: > > On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

++ On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On

Re: Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-10 03:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can have only true / forse values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also

Re: Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, wrote: From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can have only true / forse values. Since the return type of the

Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can have only true / forse values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice to have data type as bool in place of int. Moreover, the executed

[PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can only be true / false values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice to have data type as bool in place of int. Moreover, the executed

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

Hi julia, On 2018-04-15 05:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 08:22 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 09:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > We already have some 500

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

On 2018-04-19 01:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 06:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 17:07 +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: > > > Hi julia, > > > > > > On

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

On 2018-04-19 02:48 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-19 01:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 06:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 17:07 +0800,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-20 09:47 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-11 07:20 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote:

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-21 03:24 AM, Joe Perches wrote: On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:44 +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-20 09:47 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: [] > [ZJ] Further prototyping has been given based on gcc for both of > x86_64 and armv8-a, > unsigned int and bool share

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

On 2018-04-19 06:42 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-19 02:48 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-19 01:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 06:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-11 07:20 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue,

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

On 2018-03-26 10:12 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, John. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:05:50PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: as a bool, __cpuset_node_allowed(...) return should be bool. So, as a minor cleanup patch, this is fine but can you please soften the commit title / description a

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

Hi Tejun, inline. On 2018-03-26 10:12 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, John. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:05:50PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: From 304cec1cc42255fbd9e231a810f4eea20ab74b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Zhao Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

Hi Tejun, inline. On 2018-03-26 10:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:20:43PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: 1) return int type variable in bool function: bool enabled() { int ret = 1; return ret; } ... 2) bool enabled() { bool ret =

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

Hi Tejun, Additionally, On 2018-03-26 10:37 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Hi Tejun, inline. On 2018-03-26 10:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:20:43PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: 1) return int type variable in bool function: bool enabled() {

[PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

as a bool, __cpuset_node_allowed(...) return should be bool. Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c.orig 2018-03-24 12:39:27.854178608 +0800 +++ kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c 2018-03-24 12:40:51.020708670 +0800 @@ -2552,7 +2552,7 @@ static struct cpuset

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

From 304cec1cc42255fbd9e231a810f4eea20ab74b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Zhao Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:01:32 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool as a bool, __cpuset_node_allowed(...) return should be bool. Signed-off-by: John Zhao

[PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

Hi, From 549bae59445c5ec67dd6a46f3ea4f58966d40c9b Current the struct rtc_wkalrm is dumped as "alrm_" by printing converted from the struct name of "alrm.*" directly. Shall we use the "alarm *" to replace the "alrm_*" during this dumping? Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c |

Re: [PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

Hi, Kindly, this format change formats the rtc dump from: alrm_time : 00:00:00 alrm_date : 1970-01-01 alarm_IRQ : no alrm_pending: no to: alarm time : 00:00:00 alarm date : 1970-01-01 alarm IRQ

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

Hi Tejun, inline. On 2018-03-26 10:12 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, John. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:05:50PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: From 304cec1cc42255fbd9e231a810f4eea20ab74b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Zhao Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:01:32 +0800 Subject: [PATCH]

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

Hi Tejun, inline. On 2018-03-26 10:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:20:43PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: 1) return int type variable in bool function: bool enabled() { int ret = 1; return ret; } ... 2) bool enabled() { bool ret =

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

Hi Tejun, Additionally, On 2018-03-26 10:37 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Hi Tejun, inline. On 2018-03-26 10:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:20:43PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: 1) return int type variable in bool function: bool enabled() {

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

On 2018-03-26 10:12 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, John. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:05:50PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: as a bool, __cpuset_node_allowed(...) return should be bool. So, as a minor cleanup patch, this is fine but can you please soften the commit title / description a

[PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

as a bool, __cpuset_node_allowed(...) return should be bool. Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c.orig 2018-03-24 12:39:27.854178608 +0800 +++ kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c 2018-03-24 12:40:51.020708670 +0800 @@ -2552,7 +2552,7 @@ static struct cpuset *nearest_hardwall_a bool

Re: [PATCH]cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool

From 304cec1cc42255fbd9e231a810f4eea20ab74b90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Zhao Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:01:32 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] cgroup: __cpuset_node_allowed return bool as a bool, __cpuset_node_allowed(...) return should be bool. Signed-off-by: John Zhao ---

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

On 2018-04-19 06:42 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-19 02:48 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-19 01:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 06:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-11 07:20 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-20 09:47 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-11 07:20 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote:

Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can have only true / forse values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice to have data type as bool in place of int. Moreover, the executed instructions cost could be

[PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can only be true / false values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice to have data type as bool in place of int. Moreover, the executed instructions cost could be

Re: Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-10 03:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can have only true / forse values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable

Re: Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, wrote: From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can have only true / forse values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice

[PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can only be true / false values. Since the return type of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable tick_stopped nice to have data type as 'bool' in place of the 'unsigned int'. Moreover, the executed instructions

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

Subject and commit message have been updated due for typo. This patch is based on the tip of linux-pm-cpuild branch. Thanks On 2018-04-10 04:51 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: From: John Zhao Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped can only be true / false values. Since

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

Hi Thomas, On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, wrote: > > From: John Zhao > > > > Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped > >

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: > > On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: > > On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018,

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

++ On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: ++ On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Typo... On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

Hi julia, On 2018-04-15 05:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 08:22 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 09:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > We already have some 500

Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

On 2018-04-21 03:24 AM, Joe Perches wrote: On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:44 +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-20 09:47 AM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: [] > [ZJ] Further prototyping has been given based on gcc for both of > x86_64 and armv8-a, > unsigned int and bool share

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

On 2018-04-19 01:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 06:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 17:07 +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: > > > Hi julia, > > > > > > On

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

On 2018-04-19 02:48 PM, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: On 2018-04-19 01:16 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: On Thu, 2018-04-19 at 06:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 17:07 +0800,

[PATCH] firmware: hardcode the debug message for -ENOENT

From d6892f54a81bf85ad011bfb8822567690713d575 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 When the return code of "-ENOENT" was printed inside of the debug message, which could be hardcoded simply. Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4

Re: [PATCH] firmware: hardcode the debug message for -ENOENT

Hi, Refined at below. From bbd0d9c8f28eb78ca34353347c3d4092e88f000c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 When the return code of "-ENOENT" was printed inside of the debug message, which could be hardcoded meaningfully. Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c | 8 1

Re: [PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

On 2018-12-07 04:38 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: On 06/12/2018 15:22:51+0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Hi, Kindly, this format change formats the rtc dump from: alrm_time : 00:00:00 alrm_date : 1970-01-01 alarm_IRQ : no alrm_pending

Re: [PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

Hi, Kindly, this format change formats the rtc dump from: alrm_time : 00:00:00 alrm_date : 1970-01-01 alarm_IRQ : no alrm_pending: no to: alarm time : 00:00:00 alarm date : 1970-01-01 alarm IRQ

[PATCH v2] firmware: hardcode the debug message for -ENOENT

From: John Zhao When no file /path was found, the error code of -ENOENT enumerated in errno-base.h, is returned. Stating clearly that the file was not found is much more useful for debugging, So let's be explicit about that. Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c |

Re: [PATCH] firmware: hardcode the debug message for -ENOENT

On 2019-02-05 07:30 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 05:58:30PM +0800, yuank...@codeaurora.org wrote: Hi, Refined at below. From bbd0d9c8f28eb78ca34353347c3d4092e88f000c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 This is all garbled, not sure why your patch looks all messed up. Are

[PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

Hi, From 549bae59445c5ec67dd6a46f3ea4f58966d40c9b Current the struct rtc_wkalrm is dumped as "alrm_" by printing converted from the struct name of "alrm.*" directly. Shall we use the "alarm *" to replace the "alrm_*" during this dumping? Signed-off-by: John Zhao --- drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c |