[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTin4Sp6rw25WffuEXeEQhJBiCzmiTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:48:07 +0200
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gnb@...h.org, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] dynamic_debug: return int from ddebug_change
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:24:56PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -425,6 +424,7 @@ static int ddebug_exec_query(char *query_string)
> > > #define MAXWORDS 9
> > > int nwords;
> > > char *words[MAXWORDS];
> > > + int nfound;
> > >
> > > nwords = ddebug_tokenize(query_string, words, MAXWORDS);
> > > if (nwords <= 0)
> > > @@ -435,7 +435,8 @@ static int ddebug_exec_query(char *query_string)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > /* actually go and implement the change */
> > > - ddebug_change(&query, flags, mask);
> > > + nfound = ddebug_change(&query, flags, mask);
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> >
> > Do these changes actually do anything, or did I miss something ?
>
> its used in a subsequent patch to decide whether or not to call
> add_to_pending.
As far as I can see your comment applies to the function
ddebug_change() while my comment applies to the function
ddebug_exec_query(). If you have a close look at the above changes you
will see that these do nothing more than adding a dead assignment.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists