On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 14:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:19:26AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rus...@intel.com> > > > > Resolve some shadow warnings resulting from using the name > > jiffies, which is a well-known global. This is not a problem > > of course, but it could be a trap for someone copying and > > pasting code, and it just makes W=2 a little cleaner. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rus...@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> > > Why isn't Mark sending this email?
Mark sent me several patches like this, for me to push upstream. So, I am making sure the appropriate owner is the receives the patch versus blindly sending to LKML. > > > --- > > kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c > > index 6815171..7782dbc 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c > > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ > > static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem); > > static noinline int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem); > > static noinline int __down_killable(struct semaphore *sem); > > -static noinline int __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long jiffies); > > +static noinline int __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long njiffies); > > static noinline void __up(struct semaphore *sem); > > So what's wrong with calling it "timeout" instead? That's what most > other sites do. Timeout would work as well to resolve the shadow warnings.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
