[H. Peter Anvin - Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 12:27:15PM -0800]
> Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ingo, you're quite right! Next time i'll appear in list with real
>> (and hope usefull) patch ;)
>>
>
> Wonderful! I also *really* have to apologize for my short fuse earlier, it
> was uncalled for.
>
>
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Thanks Ingo, you're quite right! Next time i'll appear in list with real
(and hope usefull) patch ;)
Wonderful! I also *really* have to apologize for my short fuse earlier,
it was uncalled for.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib
* Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch eliminates checkpatch.pl complains on bootflag.c
thanks, applied this to x86.git, to the v2.6.25 queue. See the finalized
patch below. (I added two more small cleanups that checkpatch did not
warn about but which were obvious)
[Ingo Molnar - Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:22:50PM +0100]
|
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > orig:
| > mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
| > new (could be):
| > mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1);
| >
| > Is a new version that bad?
[Ingo Molnar - Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:22:50PM +0100]
|
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > orig:
| > mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
| > new (could be):
| > mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1);
| >
| > Is a new version that bad?
* Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> orig:
> mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
> new (could be):
> mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1);
>
> Is a new version that bad?
it's certainly acceptable as newly introduced code but only borderline
[H. Peter Anvin - Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 09:44:18AM -0800]
> Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>
>>>
>> It's a quite true, sorry for this and thanks for the note. And Peter,
>> the line I marked
>> is not to be splitted even having additional spaces over math operators.
>> Look
>>
>> orig:
>> mbr_base = (buf
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
It's a quite true, sorry for this and thanks for the note. And Peter,
the line I marked
is not to be splitted even having additional spaces over math operators. Look
orig:
mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1);
new (could be):
mbr_base = (buf_base + s
On Dec 26, 2007 2:48 AM, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that
> > checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example,
> > run it over edd.c showed only one warning:
> >
> > BTW, is there someone
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Hi list,
by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that
checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example,
run it over edd.c showed only one warning:
BTW, is there someone who is already involved in a such
cleanup to eliminate double effort?
BTW, it's more than
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Hi list,
by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that
checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example,
run it over edd.c showed only one warning:
I'm generally skeptical to the kind of "cleanups" that you seem to be
referring to. More often then not they re
Hi list,
by doing cleanup of arch/x86/boot/*.[ch] i found that
checkpatch does ignore obvious things. For example,
run it over edd.c showed only one warning:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6.git $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file
arch/x86/boot/edd.c
WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
#45
12 matches
Mail list logo
