Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:52:36 +0800 | From | Chen Gang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kernel: trace: remove __init from race_selftest_startup_function() and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() |
| |
Oh, sorry for my original impolite reply (at least it is not quite gentle).
:-)
On 07/16/2013 08:22 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > On 07/16/2013 12:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> >>>> Hello Frederic and Ingo: >> Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this code and I'm one of the >> maintainers for it. Your issue is very minor, and can wait till other >> things get done first. >> >> You said my previous patch fixed your problem, right? Then I'll add your >> tested by and push it in due course. >> >> I'll also get around to adding __init's to other functions too. But it >> is *very* low on the totem pole of importance. >> > > I only provide my suggestions (or recommendations) which I think might > be useful for us, and I don't care about whether you accept or not. > > If you want discuss, we can continue, if you won't (now, I guess so), > you can just provide your choice is OK. > >>>> >>>> Could you provide your suggestions or completions for it ? >>>> >>>> The trace_selftest_startup_* funcitons are mostly added by you without >>>> '__init', do you have additional considerations about it (intend to have >>>> no '__init') ? >>>> >>>> If no reply, I recommend to keep no '__init': apply this patch or >>>> regress part of the patch "f1ed7c7 ftrace: Do not run selftest if >>>> command line parameter is set" (at least, it can avoid related warnings >>>> and treat all *selftest* fair). >> It's a compile time warning that's a false positive. Not a run time >> crash or other issue of importance. It can wait, relax. Otherwise you >> are starting to become annoying. > > At least this patch is not 'urgent' (not a run time crash, or other > issue of 'urgent'), but every members have their own opinions to treat > this issue whether 'important' or not ('important' != 'urgent'). > > And every members' time resources are expensive (not only you, but also > me, and other members). > > When I got none-reply, I don't know what happened (whether you agree, or > not, what I said correct or incorrect ?), it is a polite to give a > confirmation reply to tell whether you accept or not. > > > Thanks. >
-- Chen Gang
| |