Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1484263 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-15 17:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-16 13:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-09-15 17:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-09-15 19:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-09-16 13:30 +0200
| From | Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 17:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test |
| Message-ID | <shGiR-8jb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> index 9a5cd63..551e3064 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "Switch SSC clock to %dMHz (cur_clk = %d)\n",
> clk, chip->cur_clk);
>
> - if ((clk <= 2) || (N > max_N)) {
> + if ((clk <= 2) || (max_N < N)) {
Where is the constant?
The original code looks fine to me...
Also, I can't take patches where there is no changelog text, sorry.
greg k-h
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shIE2-1vO-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1484263 |
That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false
positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Sorry for inconvenience.
I'll be careful with Changelog stuff from now. Thanks for advice.
Cheers,
Sergio Paracuellos
El 2016年09月15日 a las 16:51, Greg KH escribió:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> index 9a5cd63..551e3064 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
>> dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "Switch SSC clock to %dMHz (cur_clk = %d)\n",
>> clk, chip->cur_clk);
>>
>> - if ((clk <= 2) || (N > max_N)) {
>> + if ((clk <= 2) || (max_N < N)) {
>
> Where is the constant?
>
> The original code looks fine to me...
>
> Also, I can't take patches where there is no changelog text, sorry.
>
> greg k-h
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shINH-1zt-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1484427 |
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 19:22 +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false > positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Sorry for inconvenience. Keeping the style consistent instead of taking the simplest path to quiet the checkpatch messages is better. Making N, min_N, max_N all lower case would be better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shZvg-40T-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1484427 |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 07:22:40PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false > positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Also the old code was better than new code so leave it alone. regards, dan carpenter
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web