lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-17 03:21    [W:0.060 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site