, 2015 7:36 PM
To: Drokin, Oleg
Cc: ; ;
; ; Julia
Lawall; ;
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH v4 10/13] staging: lustre: lnet: lnet:
checkpatch.pl fixes
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:25 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>>> I wonder
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:25 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve
> lustre_error/lustre_debug?
> >>>
> >>> The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's
> >>> at least misleading u
On May 22, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
I wonder what is more clear about that in your opinion ve
lustre_error/lustre_debug?
>>>
>>> The fact that you have to explain this shows that it's
>>> at least misleading unless you completely understand the
>>> code.
>>
>> Or you know,
On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 00:07 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On May 22, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 21:16 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> >> On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On May 22, 20
On May 22, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 21:16 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Thu, 21
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 21:16 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> >> On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
> >>>
> That's a
On May 22, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
>>>
That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
>>>
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 08:08 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
> >
> >> That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
> >> is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
Removal of lustre-added typedefs is worthwhile, actually.
I scraped the surface some time ago, but could not complete it back then.
On May 21, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Michael Shuey wrote:
I've been killing off a *lot* of checkpatch warnings, and I'm probab
On May 22, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
>
>> That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
>> is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug macros
>> everywhere, and they all check a #define'd mask t
Removal of lustre-added typedefs is worthwhile, actually.
I scraped the surface some time ago, but could not complete it back then.
On May 21, 2015, at 5:47 PM, Michael Shuey wrote:
> I've been killing off a *lot* of checkpatch warnings, and I'm probably
> getting a tad overzealous. I'll drop t
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Michael Shuey wrote:
> That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
> is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug macros
> everywhere, and they all check a #define'd mask to see if they should fire,
> and the behavior is likely go
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 17:47 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
> Any suggestions on other checkpatch warnings? Most of what remains are
> "don't introduce new typedefs" warnings - should these be removed as well,
> or am I safe to leave these?
I'm personally not a big fan of non-enum typedefs unless
the
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 18:04 -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
> That's a task (of many) I've been putting on the back burner until the code
> is cleaner. It's also a HUGE change, since there are debug macros
> everywhere, and they all check a #define'd mask to see if they should fire,
> and the behavior
On Thu, 21 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
> > Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> []
> > @@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_conso
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 15:50 -0400, Mike Shuey wrote:
> Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c
[]
> @@ -99,38 +99,42 @@ lnet_connect_console_error(int rc, lnet_nid_t peer_nid,
> switch (rc)
Fix many checkpatch.pl warnings.
Signed-off-by: Mike Shuey
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/acceptor.c| 69 ++-
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/api-ni.c | 18 --
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/config.c |2 +-
drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/l
17 matches
Mail list logo
