[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1D08B61A9CF0974AA09887BE32D889DA0DA827@ULS-OP-MBXIP03.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 00:22:16 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/14] Add the BFQ I/O Scheduler to blk-mq
On 03/04/2017 08:01 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Some patch generates WARNINGS with checkpatch.pl, but these WARNINGS
> seem to be either unavoidable for the involved pieces of code (which
> the patch just extends), or false positives.
The code in this series looks reasonably clean from a code style point
of view, but please address all checkpatch warnings that can be
addressed easily. A few examples of such checkpatch warnings:
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR' are not preferred.
Consider using octal permissions '0644'.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists