Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Sat, 08 Mar 2014 08:26:43 -0800 |
| |
On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 00:16 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:31:32PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > >Looks like this is unintentional as the > >result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE is being > >overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT in the > >fallthrough to the default case. > > Thanks, Joe. It wasn't unintentional.
Hi Gavin.
English usages of "double negatives" are different than other languages. "it wasn't unintentional" means the same thing as "it was intentional".
> Could you have better commit log > and subject, then repost it? > > The format looks like: > > --- > > powerpc/eeh: Fix overwritten PE state > > In pseries_eeh_get_state(), we always have EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE > overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT because of the missed "break" > the patch fixes the issue. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
From my perspective, you should write up a commit message of your own choice (I wouldn't use "we", but the rest seems OK) and add a Reported-by:
All I did was notice it and bring it to your attention.
> --- > > With the better commit log/subject, please have: > > Acked-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > >--- > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c > >index 8a8f047..83da53f 100644 > >--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c > >+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c > >@@ -460,14 +460,15 @@ static int pseries_eeh_get_state(struct eeh_pe *pe, int *state) > > case 5: > > if (rets[2]) { > > if (state) *state = rets[2]; > > result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE; > > } else { > > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > > } > >+ break; > > default: > > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > > } > > } else { > > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > > } > > > > Thanks, > Gavin >
| |