[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQpkUNNs6xEE_Ulw@APC323>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 11:17:36 +0800
From: Yu-Chien Peter Lin <peterlin@...estech.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
CC: <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <david@...hat.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
<bjorn@...osinc.com>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: Improve PTDUMP to show RSW with non-zero
value
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 01:53:13PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 09:40:25AM +0800, Yu Chien Peter Lin wrote:
>
> > + val = st->current_prot & pte_bits[i].mask;
> > + if (val) {
> > + if (pte_bits[i].mask == _PAGE_SOFT)
> > + sprintf(s, pte_bits[i].set, val >> 8);
> > + else
> > + sprintf(s, "%s", pte_bits[i].set);
> > + } else
> > + sprintf(s, "%s", pte_bits[i].clear);
> > +
>
> just a nit, but checkpatch in the automation is whinging that you have
> forgotten to add {} around both branches if this if statement.
Hi Conor,
Will fix the warning.
Thanks,
Peter Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists