[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161210210737.GR8244@mwanda>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:07:37 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] nvme-fabrics: correct some printk information
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:54:50PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> diff -u -p drivers//dma/pxa_dma.c /tmp/nothing//dma/pxa_dma.c
> --- drivers//dma/pxa_dma.c
> +++ /tmp/nothing//dma/pxa_dma.c
> @@ -640,9 +640,6 @@ static unsigned int clear_chan_irq(struc
> dcsr = phy_readl_relaxed(phy, DCSR);
> phy_writel(phy, dcsr, DCSR);
> if ((dcsr & PXA_DCSR_BUSERR) && (phy->vchan))
> - dev_warn(&phy->vchan->vc.chan.dev->device,
> - "%s(chan=%p): PXA_DCSR_BUSERR\n",
> - __func__, &phy->vchan);
That's not a defect. We're getting the address of vchan. I don't get
it?
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists