Re: [PATCH] Staging: comedi: das16: Fixed a const struct coding style issue
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:51:56PM +, Hartley Sweeten wrote: > On Monday, November 27, 2017 3:28 AM, Ian Abbott wrote: > > On 26/11/17 01:50, Alex Frappier Lachapelle wrote: > >> + const struct comedi_lrange *lrange; > > > > NAK. The following lines of source code allocate memory pointed to by > > 'lrange' and modify it, so 'const' is not appropriate here. > > Ian, > > Wonder if it's worth putting a comment about this in the code. This has come > up a > couple times. It's a nice test to see who actually builds the code before they send a patch in :) ___ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: system hang
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:59:38AM +, Narasimharao Bolisetti wrote: > > Hi, > > I have checked the same in the recent kernel versions also. Issue is still > remain. What versions have you tried, and what are the logs from those versions? > ::DISCLAIMER:: > > > The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and > intended for the named recipient(s) only. > E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, > lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in > transmission. The e mail and its contents > (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on > the originator or HCL or its affiliates. > Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the > author and may not necessarily reflect the > views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, > dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, > distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written > consent of authorized representative of > HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please > delete it and notify the sender immediately. > Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses > and other defects. > > Oops, sorry, nope, I'm not allowed to respond to anyone with such an email footer, it's not compatible with Linux kernel development (Linux is not confidential.) Best of luck, I suggest you work with the vendor who is forcing you to stick with such an old kernel version. greg k-h ___ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [Patch v2 1/2] lustre: Parantheses added for Macro argument to avoid precedence issues
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 11:25:00AM +, Rishiraj Manwatkar wrote: > From: RishirajAM > > Parantheses are added for Macro argument, to avoid precedence issues. > > Signed-off-by: Rishiraj Manwatkar > --- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) What changed from v1? Always put that below the --- line. And your From: line doesn't match your signed-off-by name, that's not ok. > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > index ee7d677..0997254 100755 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ > */ > > #define cl_io_for_each(slice, io) \ > - list_for_each_entry((slice), &io->ci_layers, cis_linkage) > + list_for_each_entry((slice), &(io)->ci_layers, cis_linkage) What 'precidence' issue is this fixing? How could that ever be incorrect? Really, this macro just needs to go away and be used "as is" anyway... thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [Patch v2 2/2] lustre: fix coding style issue
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 11:25:11AM +, Rishiraj Manwatkar wrote: > Comparison should have the CONSTANT on the right side of the test Your subject needs to be better :( thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [Patch v3 1/2] lustre: Parantheses added for Macro argument to avoid precedence issues
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 01:50:42PM +, Rishiraj Manwatkar wrote: > Parantheses are added for Macro argument, to avoid precedence issues. > > Signed-off-by: Rishiraj Manwatkar > --- > v1 -> v2: Added mailing list in cc. > v2 -> v3: Changed From: to be same as Signed-off-by:. > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > index ee7d677..0997254 100755 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ > */ > > #define cl_io_for_each(slice, io) \ > - list_for_each_entry((slice), &io->ci_layers, cis_linkage) > + list_for_each_entry((slice), &(io)->ci_layers, cis_linkage) Really? There is no precedence issues that I can see here, sorry. thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [Patch v4 1/2] staging/lustre: add parenthesis to macro argument
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:50:05PM +, Rishiraj Manwatkar wrote: > Add parenthesis to cl_io_for_each() macro to avoid potential issues with > unexpected argument expansion in CPP. > > Signed-off-by: Rishiraj Manwatkar > --- > v1 -> v2: Added mailing list in cc. > v2 -> v3: Changed From: to be same as Signed-off-by:. > v3 -> v4: Changed Subject line and patch description as suggested by > [email protected] > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > index ee7d677..0997254 100755 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c > @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ > */ > > #define cl_io_for_each(slice, io) \ > - list_for_each_entry((slice), &io->ci_layers, cis_linkage) > + list_for_each_entry((slice), &(io)->ci_layers, cis_linkage) > #define cl_io_for_each_reverse(slice, io) \ > - list_for_each_entry_reverse((slice), &io->ci_layers, cis_linkage) > + list_for_each_entry_reverse((slice), &(io)->ci_layers, cis_linkage) No, the original code is correct, that's going to be a variable only, not any type of "complex argument". thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
