Re: [libdrm][PATCH 2/2] Fix gcc -Wextra warnings

From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
To: Jan Vesely <jan.vesely@rutgers.edu>
Cc: emil.l.velikov@gmail.com, ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [libdrm][PATCH 2/2] Fix gcc -Wextra warnings
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:55:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DA8C77.4080103@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423604228.3926.44.camel@rutgers.edu>

On 10/02/15 21:37, Jan Vesely wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 00:27 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 10 February 2015 at 00:02, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely@rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 23:32 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> On 9 February 2015 at 21:39, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely@rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <jan.vesely@rutgers.edu>
>>>> Nice one Jan. I've sent similar fixes for drmOpenDevice and
>>>> drmGetStats a few days ago.
>>>>
>>>> Considering you drop the last hunk that Ian spotted both patches are
>>>> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks, I sent v2 of that patch few minutes ago.
>>>
>>> I think your 4/6 and 5/6 overlap with this one. Should I go ahead or do
>>> you plan to push yours?
>>>
>> I would go with your series - it handles more cases, plus already has
>> move reviews :-P
>> If you feel like looking through some of my series that would be appreciated.
> 
> I wasn't subscribed to the list so I can't reply to those emails (don't
> know the message-ids).
> I looked at the series from Jan 29th [0]. 
> 
> 1/6[1], there is no tests/util directory, I guess it depends on
> Thierry's series? since it hasn't landed yet does it make sense to
> squash it there (like your 04.1/11 SQUASH: tests: misc cleanups) ?
> 
> 2/6[2], also does not apply cleanly (needs Thierry's 5/11), if you want
> to push a version rebased on master you can add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Vesely <jan.vesely@rutgers.edu>
> to that one
> 
I'll these on hold and revive as Theirry's series lands.

> 4/6 and 5/6 were superseded, and I don't know enough about android to
> look at the other two, but
> 
> 6/6 looks trivial enough
> Acked-by: Jan Vesely <jan.vesely@rutgers.edu>
> 
> with a small nit:
> Why keep two assignments to LOCAL_SHARED_LIBRARIES in intel/Android.mk ?
> 
Good catch. I'm assuming that (a) either I messed up at cherry-picking
the patch or (b) git got confused as their three does not have
libpciaccess in the list.

Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel