[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321997351.2222.14.camel@koala>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:29:08 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] DocG3 fixes and write support
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 16:02 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Hi Artem and David,
>
> This patchset has been in review for several weeks. All
> pending comments have been handled. I'd like to have it in
> for the next merge window. Do I need to do anything else to
> have it integrated (grouping patches to have lesser kernel
> history impact, ...) ?
Hi, pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git, thanks!
1. The reviewers did not give you any "Reviewed-by:" ?
2. This series has one checkpatch.pl complaint in patch 15, which looks
fair:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL
#74: FILE: drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:64:
+static unsigned int reliable_mode = 0;
total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 206 lines checked
/home/dedekind/tmp/j15.mbox has style problems, please review.
3. When I compile with gcc-4.6 for x68_64 I see the following
compilation warnings:
CC [M] drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.o
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c: In function ‘doc_read_oob’:
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:630:3: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘doc_get_hw_bch_syndroms’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:513:13: note: expected ‘int *’ but argument is of type ‘u8 *’
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c: At top level:
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:762:12: warning: ‘doc_get_erase_count’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
4. sparse gives the following warning:
CHECK drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:630:48: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different type sizes)
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:630:48: expected int *syns
drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:630:48: got unsigned char *<noident>
Could you please look at 2, 3, and 4? I did not look whether they are
fair or not. Please, do not re-send the series again, I think it is OK
if you send incremental fixes instead. Or if you at some point re-send
v4, you can incorporate the warnings fixes, but please, do not send 16
patches again only because of this :-)
Thanks!
--
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