[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <947317636.5681951.1457124536330.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 20:48:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@...ian.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"trivial@...nel.org" <trivial@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: LLVMLinux: Change "extern inline" to "static
inline" in mpi-inline.h and mpi-internal.h
Hi
>Close, but not quite right.
>It's currently in the crypto tree after Herbert Xu picked it up.
>It is scheduled to be merged into 4.6 at the moment.
wonderful, sure, in the next merge window is good.
But there is a little difference between your patch and mine.
In your case they were build warnings, now with gcc-5 as default
(e.g. Debian, Ubuntu), they are errors, so I would give the patch
merge a speedup...
but who am I to give suggestions to kernel folks? :)
I can use the patch locally, and wait for the next release (actually
I'm using it on iMX6 machines, so I have to backport this kind of patches
anyway)
>The mail is not formatted in a way that allows being imported with
>'git am'. The best way to do this right is to use the headers
>as they come from git format-patch directly, and start the mail with
>the changelog text (and with a From: line before that).
I did a git format-patch -1 commitid, from the source tree.
The mail client (Thunderbird) has been configured with the documentation
in the source tree, but I think it failed to not wrap the lines :)
(I also have used git send-email or something similar some months ago, maybe
I could have just used it)
>Here you have kept my Signed-off-by line, but not the author attribution.
>This is easy to get wrong. You probably want to change the author
>field using 'git commit --amend --author="Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>"',
>which will cause the correct From: line to show up when exporting it
>with git send-email.
I know really good git, but I left it that way, because actually the patch was different
from your one, and I don't want people blaming you instead of me.
(not sure if the right approach, I thought the signoff was something nice, but
probably I agree it is even worse)
>You have marked the function as 'static' here, rather than 'static inline'
>as I did in my patch. I think my version is better here, because it matches
>the definition of the function, and because declaring a function as
>'static' in a header file is generally a bad idea: you will get a build
>warning or error if the header is included in a file that does not provide
>a definition.
true story, bad copy paste from commits
aeea3592a13bf12861943e44fc48f1f270941f8d
76ae03828756bac2c1fa2c7eff7485e5f815dbdb
I'll try to make it right the next time!
thanks for the explanation, I patch kernel almost daily, I hope to contribute to it
in the near future.
cheers,
Gianfranco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists