[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip] x86: apic/x2apic_cluster.c x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid should be static

    * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <> wrote:

    > Impact: reduce kernel size a bit, avoid sparse warning
    > Fixes sparse warning:
    > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_cluster.c:13:1: warning: symbol 'per_cpu__x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid' was not declared. Should it be static?
    > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <>
    > ---
    > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_cluster.c | 2 +-
    > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

    Applied, thanks.

    There is a not so small nit:

    > Impact: reduce kernel size a bit, avoid sparse warning
    > Fixes sparse warning:

    the thing is, we dont 'fix', nor do we 'avoid' Sparse warnings!

    We _read_ them, _understand_ them, and then we act upon them, fixing
    the problem they expose.

    Or, if there is no problem exposed, we annotate the code to fix the
    Sparse false positive warning.

    Your changelog does not tell us anything whether you went through
    that thought process. I had to double-check it and had to create
    this information from scratch.

    Please take this as a last warning: you send lots of patches that
    address various things mechanically, often without thinking through
    the effects. They are expensive to maintain, because they cause
    churn and because people often have to do more work accepting them
    than you did creating them!

    You sent a hundred patches in two weeks and they are not applied yet
    - and this is why: it is expensive to filter through them and if you
    dont do it we can only do it by simply not taking them all that
    easily. Taking them simply does not scale.

    And if you write a hundred patches in two weeks you _really_ have to
    ask yourself whether your quality controls are strong enough before
    emitting them. There are highly productive members of the Linux
    community who only send a dozen patches per _year_.

    You really want to avoid the 'also sends clueless patches'
    contributor label, because the only way to deal with such patches as
    a maintainer is to rate-throttle them.



     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-12 12:55    [W:0.023 / U:12.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site