lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/06] Fix compilation warning for fs/ubifs/commit.c
    From
    Date
    Hi,

    On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 12:57 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
    > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 20:16 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
    > > Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
    > > > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 07:49 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
    > > >> Following fix is inspired by David Howells fix few days back:
    > > >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/9/109,
    > > >>
    > > >> Signed-off-by: Subrata Modak<subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
    > > >> ---
    > > >
    > > > Removed junk comma at the end of "signed-off-by" and pushed to
    > > > the ubifs-2.6.git tree:
    > > >
    > > > http://git.infradead.org/ubifs-2.6.git?a=commit;h=5c1507e6097c4abc13bbad69de137366c9043f22
    > > >
    > > > Thanks.
    > > >
    > >
    > > The changelog of the patch is bad. "Fix compilation warning" is not
    > > correct. It should be "suppress compilation warning" or "annotate
    > > unitialized variable" or whatever --- i.e. it should say what it does.

    Ok, i would change accordingly.

    >
    > For me this sounds the same. But probably your version is better
    > English. I'll change this.
    >
    > > Furthermore, since the 3 lines context around the change in the diff do
    > > not reveal why the chosen "fix" is correct and desirable, the changelog
    > > should also leave a note why it's done this way.
    >
    > The changelog says which kind of warning is fixed, I though it is
    > obvious what is the warning. At lease for me it would.
    >
    > But if Subrata sends me the warning he sees, I'll change that.
    > Thankfully I did not push the patch to ubifs-2.6.git/linux-next
    > which I never re-base, but pushed it to master which I do rebase
    > and it is documented here:
    > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubifs.html#L_source

    I would resend with exact warning generated, etc.

    >
    > So I may just amend the commit's message.
    >
    > > The patch form David Howells which is quoted here has an equally bad
    > > subject, but at least its changelog goes on to explain what the patch
    > > really does and why it does it in the proposed way.

    Well, untill gcc becomes a little more intelligent, i believe people
    would continue to fix them like this way. I would add proper description
    in my resend patch.

    >
    > Well, I just thought this type of warnings and way of fixing is very
    > standard because I saw many similar fixes all over the place.
    >

    Correct. There has been other warning fixes i have sent to LKML, where i
    have tweaked the code to fix the compilation, but, code tweaking may not
    be possible in this case. However , i would still investigate.

    Regards--
    Subrata

    > Anyway, amended the patch like this so far:
    > http://git.infradead.org/ubifs-2.6.git?a=commit;h=5c1507e6097c4abc13bbad69de137366c9043f22
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-16 13:07    [W:0.025 / U:30.992 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site