Daniel Axtens <d...@axtens.net> writes:
> Hi Kai,
>
> Thank you for your contribution to the powerpc kernel!
>
>> Get rid of warning:
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c:774: warning: expecting prototype for
>> eeh_set_pe_freset(). Prototype was for eeh_set_dev_freset() instead
>
> You haven't said where this warning is from. I thought it might be from
> sparse but I couldn't seem to reproduce it - is my version of sparse too
> old or are you using a different tool?
>
>> /**
>> - * eeh_set_pe_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
>> - * @data: EEH device
>> + * eeh_set_dev_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
>> + * @edev: EEH device
>> * @flag: return value
>> *
>> * Each device might have its preferred reset type: fundamental or
>
> This looks like a good and correct change.
>
> I checked through git history with git blame to see when the function
> was renamed. There are 2 commits that should have updated the comment:
> one renamed the function and one renamed an argument. So, I think this
> commit could have:
>
> Fixes: d6c4932fbf24 ("powerpc/eeh: Strengthen types of eeh traversal
> functions")
> Fixes: c270a24c59bd ("powerpc/eeh: Do reset based on PE")
>
> But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to
> justify a Fixes: tag? (mpe, I'm sure I've asked this before, sorry!)
It depends. If you think it's important that the fix gets backported
then you should add the Fixes tag.
In this case I would say no. The comments have been broken for years,
and it's a pretty obscure API.
cheers
