From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fZsc7-0004OQ-9z for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 06:47:10 +0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:46:53 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Joe Perches Cc: Richard Weinberger , Quentin Schulz , dedekind1@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, marek.vasut@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ubi: expose the volume CRC check skip flag Message-ID: <20180702084653.566d54bb@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: References: <0ace6202bddb495ae0e632ae2fd0346f99fcdab4.1530169759.git-series.quentin.schulz@bootlin.com> <382648641.QZzOm4Mo72@blindfold> <20180701223347.2cef133b@bbrezillon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:54:32 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2018-07-01 at 22:33 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:35:57 +0200 Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018, 09:40:53 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz: > > > > Now that we have the logic for skipping CRC check for static UBI volumes > > > > in the core, let's expose it to users. > [] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c > [] > > > > @@ -622,6 +622,10 @@ static int verify_mkvol_req(const struct ubi_device *ubi, > > > > req->vol_type != UBI_STATIC_VOLUME) > > > > goto bad; > > > > > > > > + if (req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG && > > > > Oops, missed that req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG check was > > missing parens (checkpatch --strict should complain about that). > > Why should checkpatch complain? > & has higher precedence than &&. > Yes, I know, but I remember checkpatch complaining about that in one of my patch (maybe it was a slightly different case though). Anyway, I double checked and, as you report, checkpatch does not complain, so please ignore this comment (sorry for the noise).