Re: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Adil Mujeeb wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:42:56 +0530 >> From: Adil Mujeeb >> To: ty...@mit.edu, adilger.ker...@dilger.ca, linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Adil Mujeeb >> Subject: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue >> >> Fixed checkpatch.pl reported ERRORs > > Hi Adil, > > let me ask you something. How useful do you think those changes are ? > Have you learned anything by creating those patches ? > > Just to clarify why I am asking such weird questions. It's not one of > those sneer questions, I would really like to know. >> linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c |8 The really sad thing is that this patch does not even apply because the path is malformed. -- Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Adil Mujeeb wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:42:56 +0530
> From: Adil Mujeeb
> To: ty...@mit.edu, adilger.ker...@dilger.ca, linux-e...@vger.kernel.org,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Adil Mujeeb
> Subject: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue
>
> Fixed checkpatch.pl reported ERRORs
Hi Adil,
let me ask you something. How useful do you think those changes are ?
Have you learned anything by creating those patches ?
Just to clarify why I am asking such weird questions. It's not one of
those sneer questions, I would really like to know.
Thanks!
-Lukas
>
> Signed-off-by: Adil Mujeeb
> ---
> linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c |8
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c
> index 1b50890..395418d 100644
> --- a/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c
> +++ b/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c
> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ unsigned ext4_free_clusters_after_init(struct super_block
> *sb,
> * @bh: pointer to the buffer head to store the block
> * group descriptor
> */
> -struct ext4_group_desc * ext4_get_group_desc(struct super_block *sb,
> +struct ext4_group_desc *ext4_get_group_desc(struct super_block *sb,
>ext4_group_t block_group,
>struct buffer_head **bh)
> {
> @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static unsigned long ext4_bg_num_gdb_nometa(struct
> super_block *sb,
> if (!ext4_bg_has_super(sb, group))
> return 0;
>
> - if (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG))
> + if (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG))
> return le32_to_cpu(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_es->s_first_meta_bg);
> else
> return EXT4_SB(sb)->s_gdb_count;
> @@ -721,11 +721,11 @@ unsigned long ext4_bg_num_gdb(struct super_block *sb,
> ext4_group_t group)
> le32_to_cpu(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_es->s_first_meta_bg);
> unsigned long metagroup = group / EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb);
>
> - if (!EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG) ||
> + if (!EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG) ||
> metagroup < first_meta_bg)
> return ext4_bg_num_gdb_nometa(sb, group);
>
> - return ext4_bg_num_gdb_meta(sb,group);
> + return ext4_bg_num_gdb_meta(sb, group);
>
> }
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Adil Mujeeb wrote:
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:42:56 +0530
From: Adil Mujeeb mujeeb.a...@gmail.com
To: ty...@mit.edu, adilger.ker...@dilger.ca, linux-e...@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Adil Mujeeb mujeeb.a...@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue
Fixed checkpatch.pl reported ERRORs
Hi Adil,
let me ask you something. How useful do you think those changes are ?
Have you learned anything by creating those patches ?
Just to clarify why I am asking such weird questions. It's not one of
those sneer questions, I would really like to know.
Thanks!
-Lukas
Signed-off-by: Adil Mujeeb mujeeb.a...@gmail.com
---
linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c |8
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c
index 1b50890..395418d 100644
--- a/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c
+++ b/linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ unsigned ext4_free_clusters_after_init(struct super_block
*sb,
* @bh: pointer to the buffer head to store the block
* group descriptor
*/
-struct ext4_group_desc * ext4_get_group_desc(struct super_block *sb,
+struct ext4_group_desc *ext4_get_group_desc(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_group_t block_group,
struct buffer_head **bh)
{
@@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static unsigned long ext4_bg_num_gdb_nometa(struct
super_block *sb,
if (!ext4_bg_has_super(sb, group))
return 0;
- if (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG))
+ if (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG))
return le32_to_cpu(EXT4_SB(sb)-s_es-s_first_meta_bg);
else
return EXT4_SB(sb)-s_gdb_count;
@@ -721,11 +721,11 @@ unsigned long ext4_bg_num_gdb(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_group_t group)
le32_to_cpu(EXT4_SB(sb)-s_es-s_first_meta_bg);
unsigned long metagroup = group / EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb);
- if (!EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG) ||
+ if (!EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG) ||
metagroup first_meta_bg)
return ext4_bg_num_gdb_nometa(sb, group);
- return ext4_bg_num_gdb_meta(sb,group);
+ return ext4_bg_num_gdb_meta(sb, group);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Adil Mujeeb wrote: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:42:56 +0530 From: Adil Mujeeb mujeeb.a...@gmail.com To: ty...@mit.edu, adilger.ker...@dilger.ca, linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Adil Mujeeb mujeeb.a...@gmail.com Subject: [PATCH 01/10] ext4: balloc: Fixed coding style issue Fixed checkpatch.pl reported ERRORs Hi Adil, let me ask you something. How useful do you think those changes are ? Have you learned anything by creating those patches ? Just to clarify why I am asking such weird questions. It's not one of those sneer questions, I would really like to know. linux-3.7-rc1/fs/ext4/balloc.c |8 The really sad thing is that this patch does not even apply because the path is malformed. -- Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
