Messages in this thread | | | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Subject | Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode | Date | Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:37:46 +0100 |
| |
"Martin Schleier" <drahemmaps@gmx.net> writes:
>> Did the patch in question contain such problems? > the last point: > - etc... =>
Yeah.
> "WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
Ironically, it's the only "WARNING" while the rest are "ERRORS". OTOH I personally believe all output from checkpatch should be labeled "WARNING"; it's not for checkpatch to decide. It's only a tool.
> #56: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/nopl_emu.c:13: > +void do_invalid_op(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code);" ? > (or do you think that this is a formatting issue?!)
Actually, I think it wasn't any issue at all at this point, when it wasn't yet established if the patch makes sense at all.
> It is the job of a Submitter > (as described in Documentations/SubmittingPatches section 4) > to check and test his patches with tools like checkpatch or sparse > before posting them.
You apparently forgot what SubmittingPatches file is all about:
"This text is a collection of suggestions which can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted."
You know, we don't have laws for everything here. And we're not androids specialized in producing C code. We are supposed to use some common sense first.
> After all this patch is going into /arch/x86 and not /drivers/staging > and this sort of "extern declaration" is prone to break one day when > void do_invalid_op(struct pt_regs *, long); declaration is modified.
That's true, though it's the same for "staging". -- Krzysztof Halasa
| |