[PATCH 1/1] x86/intel-mid: modify a code to suppress a warning

[PATCH 1/1] x86/intel-mid: modify a code to suppress a warning

[Andy Shevchenko]

The following warning is issued on unfixed code.

arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel-mid.c:64:22: warning: symbol 'intel_mid_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel-mid.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel-mid.c b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel-mid.c
index 01d54ea..1bbc21e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel-mid.c
+++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel-mid.c
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
 enum intel_mid_timer_options intel_mid_timer_options;
 
 /* intel_mid_ops to store sub arch ops */
-struct intel_mid_ops *intel_mid_ops;
+static struct intel_mid_ops *intel_mid_ops;
 /* getter function for sub arch ops*/
 static void *(*get_intel_mid_ops[])(void) = INTEL_MID_OPS_INIT;
 enum intel_mid_cpu_type __intel_mid_cpu_chip;
-- 
2.5.3

Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/intel-mid: modify a code to suppress a warning

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

Please stop to write subject lines like this.

     x86/intel-mid: modify a code to suppress a warning

This is completely useless as it does not tell what kind of warning
(compile time, runtime). Further it says that the patch modifies
code, which is completely pointless, right?

What's wrong with:

     x86/intel-mid: Make intel_mid_ops static

I end up rewriting your subject lines and changelogs on a regular
base. You really should have noticed that by now and started to spend
a little bit more effort yourself.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/intel-mid: modify a code to suppress a warning

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 16:01 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> Please stop to write subject lines like this.
> 
>      x86/intel-mid: modify a code to suppress a warning
> 
> This is completely useless as it does not tell what kind of warning
> (compile time, runtime). Further it says that the patch modifies
> code, which is completely pointless, right?
> 
> What's wrong with:
> 
>      x86/intel-mid: Make intel_mid_ops static
> 
> I end up rewriting your subject lines and changelogs on a regular
> base. You really should have noticed that by now and started to spend
> a little bit more effort yourself.

Thank you.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
> 

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy