On 05/15/2015 09:22 PM, Tolga Ceylan wrote:
visorchipset_file_init() and visorchipset_file_cleanup() functions
do not seem to be used from anywhere else and now are declared
as static. Sparse emitted "not declared" warnings for these two
functions.
Signed-off-by: Tolga Ceylan
---
drivers/stag
On 05/12/2015 08:55 PM, Tolga Ceylan wrote:
Error code returned from auth_parse() should in cpu byte order.
Signed-off-by: Tolga Ceylan
---
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_softmac.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee
The driver is reporting a warning at kernel/time/timer.c:1096 due to calling
del_timer_sync() while in interrupt mode. Such warnings are fixed by calling
del_timer() instead.
Signed-off-by: Larry Finger
Cc: Stable
Cc: Haggi Eran
---
drivers/staging/rtl8712/rtl8712_led.c | 2 +-
drivers/stagin
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:04:30AM +0200, Josef Holzmayr wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I’m currently working on a platform_driver, where I want an
> attribute_group to be in effect for every platforn_device that went
> through the corresponding .probe() call. Now
> http://kroah.com/log/blog/2013/06/26/how-t
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 21:07 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I feel like the lustre headers could be fit into 80 characters without
> losing very much.
Maybe.
> No one uses the complicated options on checkpatch anyway, they just grep
> away the warnings they don't like.
That'd be false. Other proj
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:13:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 21:07 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > No one uses the complicated options on checkpatch anyway, they just grep
> > away the warnings they don't like.
>
> That'd be false. Other projects like u-boot do.
Ah. Ok.
I feel like the lustre headers could be fit into 80 characters without
losing very much.
No one uses the complicated options on checkpatch anyway, they just grep
away the warnings they don't like. Newbies especially don't use them.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 13:32 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Many lines of code extend beyond the maximum line length.
> > Some of these are possibly justified by use type.
> >
> > For instance:
> >
> > structure definitions where comments are added per membe
Ah - that explains it. I added additional files to the series, but
simply re-applied the original round of patches. They would've not
been tagged as v4, while the patches pertaining to the newly-modified
files had v4 in the subject.
I'll be more thorough in future patch revisions. Thanks for th
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 08:09:54AM -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
> BTW, you keep mentioning a v5 that I sent. Where is that, exactly?
> The last round of patches I sent I've kept labeled as "PATCH v4", and
> I only hit git send-email once. Could you forward me something from
> this v5 series, so I
Hm, that's unfortunate - but my own fault for lack of proper
etiquette. I'll give this a week or two to settle, and build up
patches against other parts of lustre in the meantime.
BTW, you keep mentioning a v5 that I sent. Where is that, exactly?
The last round of patches I sent I've kept labele
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> Many lines of code extend beyond the maximum line length.
> Some of these are possibly justified by use type.
>
> For instance:
>
> structure definitions where comments are added per member like
>
> struct foo {
> type member;/* some lo
We would have applied the v3 patchset but now I don't know because we're
up to v5. We can't apply v5 because there are problems with it. No
one responded to v3 so Greg still might apply it or he might find these
email threads too scrambled and delete everything and ask for a resend.
It's pretty
13 matches
Mail list logo
