Re: [patch 1/4] Add function get_bootparam

Simon Horman
2013-10-28T06:09:18Z

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 01:06:45PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On 10/28/13 at 01:20pm, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:30:32AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On 10/28/13 at 09:13am, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -447,7 +446,7 @@ void setup_subarch(struct x86_linux_para
> > > > > > if (!debugfs_mnt)
> > > > > > return;
> > > > > > snprintf(filename, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", debugfs_mnt, "boot_params/data");
> > > > > > - filename[PATH_MAX-1] = 0;
> > > > > > + filename[PATH_MAX - 1] = 0;
> > > > > > free(debugfs_mnt);
> > > > >
> > > > > This change appears to be unrelated to the rest of the patch.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Will remove the change from the patch.
> > >
> > > Relooking it, with this patch the line "filename[PATH_MAX - 1] = 0;"
> > > is in the share function get_bootparam, it's not in setup_subarch
> > > any more so I think it's ok, what do you think?
> >
> > I'm a bit confused.
> >
> > My reading of the hunk above is that it is a whitespace-only change.
> > If so it is not a change that I object to but also not one that
> > I feel belongs in this patch. If not I am somehow mistaken.
>
> The diff context is cheating us, it might because of the context (+- 3 lines)
> is same with original setup_arch, but it is really moving to a new function.

Ok, in that case I have no objections.