Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/06] Fix compilation warning for fs/ubifs/commit.c | From | Subrata Modak <> | Date | Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:34:31 +0530 |
| |
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 >
| |