On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 01/16/15 12:20, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.h...@hofr.at> > > --- > > > > Patch is against 3.19.0-rc3 -next-20150109 > > > > Patch was compiletested only with x86_64_defconfig + > > CONFIG_TARGET_CORE=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND_SRPT=m > > > > drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c > > b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c > > index eb694dd..4e58c76 100644 > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c > > @@ -3533,7 +3533,7 @@ static void srpt_close_session(struct se_session > > *se_sess) > > spin_unlock_irq(&sdev->spinlock); > > > > res = wait_for_completion_timeout(&release_done, 60 * HZ); > > - WARN_ON(res <= 0); > > + WARN_ON(res == 0); > > } > > > > /** > > The description of this patch explains why you would like to change this > code but not why this change is useful. Does building the current code > e.g. trigger a compiler warning ? If so, which warning ? If not, why > would you like to change this code and why do you think this change is > an improvement ? > the code will not fail in its urrent form but it will trigger static code chekcers (actually this was found by a static code checker)
so its a QA issue not a bug fix in any way. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
