[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cecf21f8691d474441f8ff30a9dcb23@vanmierlo.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:12:53 +0200
From: m.brock@...mierlo.com
To: Florian Eckert <fe@....tdt.de>
Cc: Eckert.Florian@...glemail.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
jirislaby@...nel.org, pavel@....cz, lee@...nel.org,
kabel@...nel.org, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] trigger: ledtrig-tty: move variable definition to
the top
Florian Eckert wrote on 2023-10-16 11:12:
> On 2023-10-16 10:46, m.brock@...mierlo.com wrote:
>> Florian Eckert wrote on 2023-10-16 09:13:
>>> Has complained about the following construct:
>>
>> Who is "Has" or who/what has complained?
>
> The test robot who does not agree with my change in the v1 patchset.
You don't have to explain to me, just fix the comment.
>>> drivers/leds/trigger/ledtrig-tty.c:362:3: error: a label can only be
>>> part of a statement and a declaration is not a statement
>>>
>>> Hence move the variable definition to the beginning of the function.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>>> Closes:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309270440.IJB24Xap-lkp@intel.com/
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Eckert <fe@....tdt.de>
>>> ---
>>> @@ -124,8 +125,6 @@ static void ledtrig_tty_work(struct work_struct
>>> *work)
>>>
>>> if (icount.rx != trigger_data->rx ||
>>> icount.tx != trigger_data->tx) {
>>> - unsigned long interval = LEDTRIG_TTY_INTERVAL;
>>> -
>>
>> Is this kernel test robot broken?
>
> The test robot does nothing wrong.
>
>> I see no label definition here.
>> And this variable declaration is at the start of a new block which
>> does
>> not even require C99 support.
>
> I made change in patch set v1, that moves the definition of the
> variable
> `interval` into the switch case statement.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20230926093607.59536-3-fe@dev.tdt.de/
> The robot complained about this.
>
> So I decided to move the definition of the variable 'interval' to
> function
> head to make the test robot happy in the commit. So this commit
> prepares
> the code for my change.
>
> If it is more common, I can merge this patch [1] into the next patch
> [2]
> of this set.
Yes, please. You're fixing a problem that does not exist yet (and never
will), because the patch that introduces it is not yet applied. So fix
the proposed patch instead of patching the patch.
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20231016071332.597654-4-fe@dev.tdt.de/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20231016071332.597654-5-fe@dev.tdt.de/
>
>
> Florian
Maarten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists