From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] bfa: fix compilation warning in powerpc (resend) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:12:17 -0700 Message-ID: <20100421161217.60d5654b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1271186549-642-1-git-send-email-huangj@brocade.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1271186549-642-1-git-send-email-huangj@brocade.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jing Huang Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, James.Bottomley@suse.de, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kgudipat@Brocade.com, rvadivel@Brocade.com, vravindr@Brocade.com List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:22:29 -0700 Jing Huang wrote: > Fix the compilation warning in powerpc. When fixing a warning, please quote that warning in the patch description! It seems that you're referring to this: drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c: In function 'bfa_ioc_msgget': drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c:1331: warning: value computed is not used drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c: In function 'bfa_ioc_ct_notify_hbfail': drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c:177: warning: value computed is not used drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c:180: warning: value computed is not used drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c: In function 'bfa_ioc_ct_pll_init': drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c:381: warning: value computed is not used drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c: In function 'bfa_ioc_ct_ownership_reset': drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_ct.c:421: warning: value computed is not used drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_cb.c: In function 'bfa_ioc_cb_notify_hbfail': drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_cb.c:99: warning: value computed is not used drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_cb.c: In function 'bfa_ioc_cb_ownership_reset': drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc_cb.c:272: warning: value computed is not used > The same change also fixes endian > issue we found in powerpc test. When fixing a bug, please fully describe the bug! If this driver has "endian issues" on powerpc then it's quite possible that this is a running-around-with-hair-on-fire, must-backport-to-2.6.33.x bugfix. But how would I know? You didn't tell me!