[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210107075533.GD14697@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:55:33 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix movdir64b() sparse warning
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 03:40:25PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix movdir64b() sparse warning
There are a lot of times I don't agree with checkpatch but this time I do:
WARNING: A patch subject line should describe the change not the tool that found it
#2:
Subject: [PATCH v2] x86: fix movdir64b() sparse warning
Pls fix your other patch subject too.
> Add missing __iomem annotation to address sparse warning. Caller is expected
> to pass an __iomem annotated pointer to this function. The current usages
> send a 64bytes command descriptor to an MMIO location (portal) on a
> device for consumption. When future usages for MOVDIR64B instruction show
> up in kernel for memory to memory operation is needed, we can revisit.
Who's "we"?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists