[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <534DECA5-DFC5-497C-8023-6D7F859F8148@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 11:19:53 -0400
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, jlayton@...nel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] lockd: Make two symbols static
> On May 28, 2019, at 11:13 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 06:49:13AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> Maintainers, what's the best thing to do here: fold these into
>> another patch version and post it (add attribution)? Add it as
>> another patch at the end of the series?
>
> Either would be fine. Yeah, if it was folded in then we'd add a line
> like
>
> [hulkci@...wei.com: make symbols static to fix sparse warnings]
>
> But I'll probably just add it on to the end for now. No need for you to
> do anything.
>
>> I have learned my lesson: add sparse to my workflow.
>
> I dunno, I wonder if we're better off just leaving it to this CI bot.
> It seems like a more efficient use of time overall than making every
> contributor run it.
Occasionally sparse can catch a real problem that breaks bisectability.
Better to do this kind of checking early, and ensure that you test those
sparse-fixed bits.
--
Chuck Lever
Powered by blists - more mailing lists