On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:28 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> Rather than having CONFIG_FB_BACKLIGHT select CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE,
> make any driver that needs it have a dependency on the class device
> being available, to prevent circular dependencies.
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda
Cheers,
Miguel
(and GNU extensions apply equally to both, I would assume).
When I wrote the "(including some C99 features)" I meant that GCC
implemented some C99 features as extensions in C90 mode, and the
kernel used some of those (e.g. the now gone VLAs).
With that changed, for `programming-langua
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:30 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> Well we do have very small lcd display drivers in drm, and before that in
> fbdev. And you have a fbdev framebuffer driver in there, which looks a bit
> misplaced ...
>
> Afaiui you also have some even tinier lcd drivers where you don't addr
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 4:24 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> Oh, another display subsystem? Intriguing ...
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
It is intended for displays that are not intended as the usual/main
display, e.g. very small LCDs :)
Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda
Ch
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, it's a problem in an error leg, sure, but it's not a really
> compelling reason for a 141 patch series, is it? All that fixing this
> error will do is get the driver to print "oh dear there's a problem"
> under four more conditions
Hi Gustavo,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:21 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
Thanks for this.
Since this warning is reliable in both/all compilers and we are
event
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, it seems to be three years of someone's time plus the maintainer
> review time and series disruption of nearly a thousand patches. Let's
> be conservative and assume the producer worked about 30% on the series
> and it takes about
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:54 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
> tooling.
Not sure what you mean here. There is no reliable way to guess what
the intention was with a missing fallthrough, even if you parsed
whitespace and indentation
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, I used git. It says that as of today in Linus' tree we have 889
> patches related to fall throughs and the first series went in in
> october 2017 ... ignoring a couple of outliers back to February.
I can see ~10k insertions over ~1
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 AM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> What I meant was that you've used pessimism as if it was fact.
"future mistakes that it might prevent" is neither pessimism nor states a fact.
> For example, "There is no way to guess what the effect would be if the
> compiler trained program
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:53 AM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> I'm saying that supporting the official language spec makes more sense
> than attempting to support a multitude of divergent interpretations of the
> spec (i.e. gcc, clang, coverity etc.)
Making the kernel strictly conforming is a ship that s
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:38 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> So you think a one line patch should take one minute to produce ... I
> really don't think that's grounded in reality.
No, I have not said that. Please don't put words in my mouth (again).
I have said *authoring* lines of *this* kind tak
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:24 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> These statements are not "missing" unless you presume that code written
> before the latest de facto language spec was written should somehow be
> held to that spec.
There is no "language spec" the kernel adheres to. Even if it did,
kernel co
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:24 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> And just to spell it out,
>
> case ENUM_VALUE1:
> bla();
> break;
> case ENUM_VALUE2:
> bla();
> default:
> break;
>
> is a fairly idiomatic way of indicating that not all values of the enum
> are expected to
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> The maintainer is not necessarily the owner/author of the code, and
> thus may not know the intent of the code.
Agreed, I was not blaming maintainers -- just trying to point out that
the problem is there :-)
In those cases, it is stil
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
>
> To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> understand the intent; otherwise by adding either a break or a
> fallthrough to suppress the warning you are just destroying the
> information that "the intent of this code
16 matches
Mail list logo
