Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode

[Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>]

"Martin Schleier" <drahemmaps@gmx.net> writes:

>> Did the patch in question contain such problems?
> the last point:
>  - etc... =>

Yeah.

> "WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files

Ironically, it's the only "WARNING" while the rest are "ERRORS".
OTOH I personally believe all output from checkpatch should be labeled
"WARNING"; it's not for checkpatch to decide. It's only a tool.

> #56: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/nopl_emu.c:13:
> +void do_invalid_op(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code);" ?
> (or do you think that this is a formatting issue?!)

Actually, I think it wasn't any issue at all at this point, when it
wasn't yet established if the patch makes sense at all.

> It is the job of a Submitter
> (as described in Documentations/SubmittingPatches section 4)
> to check and test his patches with tools like checkpatch or sparse
> before posting them.

You apparently forgot what SubmittingPatches file is all about:

"This text is a collection of suggestions which can greatly increase the
chances of your change being accepted."

You know, we don't have laws for everything here. And we're not
androids specialized in producing C code. We are supposed to use some
common sense first.

> After all this patch is going into /arch/x86 and not /drivers/staging
> and this sort of "extern declaration" is prone to break one day when
> void do_invalid_op(struct pt_regs *, long); declaration is modified.

That's true, though it's the same for "staging".
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa