* [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? @ 2014-03-08 0:31 Joe Perches 2014-03-08 16:16 ` Gavin Shan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2014-03-08 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gavin Shan; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, linux-kernel Looks like this is unintentional as the result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE is being overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT in the fallthrough to the default case. --- diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c index 8a8f047..83da53f 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c @@ -460,14 +460,15 @@ static int pseries_eeh_get_state(struct eeh_pe *pe, int *state) case 5: if (rets[2]) { if (state) *state = rets[2]; result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE; } else { result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; } + break; default: result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; } } else { result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? 2014-03-08 0:31 [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? Joe Perches @ 2014-03-08 16:16 ` Gavin Shan 2014-03-08 16:26 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Gavin Shan @ 2014-03-08 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Gavin Shan, linux-kernel On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:31:32PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >Looks like this is unintentional as the >result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE is being >overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT in the >fallthrough to the default case. Thanks, Joe. It wasn't unintentional. Could you have better commit log and subject, then repost it? The format looks like: --- powerpc/eeh: Fix overwritten PE state In pseries_eeh_get_state(), we always have EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT because of the missed "break" the patch fixes the issue. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> --- With the better commit log/subject, please have: Acked-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >--- >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c >index 8a8f047..83da53f 100644 >--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c >+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c >@@ -460,14 +460,15 @@ static int pseries_eeh_get_state(struct eeh_pe *pe, int *state) > case 5: > if (rets[2]) { > if (state) *state = rets[2]; > result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE; > } else { > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > } >+ break; > default: > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > } > } else { > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > } > Thanks, Gavin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? 2014-03-08 16:16 ` Gavin Shan @ 2014-03-08 16:26 ` Joe Perches 2014-03-08 16:37 ` Gavin Shan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2014-03-08 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gavin Shan; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, linux-kernel On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 00:16 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:31:32PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > >Looks like this is unintentional as the > >result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE is being > >overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT in the > >fallthrough to the default case. > > Thanks, Joe. It wasn't unintentional. Hi Gavin. English usages of "double negatives" are different than other languages. "it wasn't unintentional" means the same thing as "it was intentional". > Could you have better commit log > and subject, then repost it? > > The format looks like: > > --- > > powerpc/eeh: Fix overwritten PE state > > In pseries_eeh_get_state(), we always have EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE > overwritten by EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT because of the missed "break" > the patch fixes the issue. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> >From my perspective, you should write up a commit message of your own choice (I wouldn't use "we", but the rest seems OK) and add a Reported-by: All I did was notice it and bring it to your attention. > --- > > With the better commit log/subject, please have: > > Acked-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > >--- > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c > >index 8a8f047..83da53f 100644 > >--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c > >+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c > >@@ -460,14 +460,15 @@ static int pseries_eeh_get_state(struct eeh_pe *pe, int *state) > > case 5: > > if (rets[2]) { > > if (state) *state = rets[2]; > > result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE; > > } else { > > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > > } > >+ break; > > default: > > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > > } > > } else { > > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; > > } > > > > Thanks, > Gavin > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? 2014-03-08 16:26 ` Joe Perches @ 2014-03-08 16:37 ` Gavin Shan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Gavin Shan @ 2014-03-08 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Gavin Shan, linux-kernel On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 08:26:43AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 00:16 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:31:32PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: .../... >English usages of "double negatives" are different >than other languages. "it wasn't unintentional" >means the same thing as "it was intentional". > Sorry, typo :) >> Could you have better commit log >> and subject, then repost it? >> .../... >From my perspective, you should write up a commit >message of your own choice (I wouldn't use "we", >but the rest seems OK) and add a Reported-by: > >All I did was notice it and bring it to your >attention. > Ok. I will post it. Thanks! Thanks, Gavin >> >--- >> >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c >> >index 8a8f047..83da53f 100644 >> >--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c >> >+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c >> >@@ -460,14 +460,15 @@ static int pseries_eeh_get_state(struct eeh_pe *pe, int *state) >> > case 5: >> > if (rets[2]) { >> > if (state) *state = rets[2]; >> > result = EEH_STATE_UNAVAILABLE; >> > } else { >> > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; >> > } >> >+ break; >> > default: >> > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; >> > } >> > } else { >> > result = EEH_STATE_NOT_SUPPORT; >> > } >> > >> >> Thanks, >> Gavin >> > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-08 16:38 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-03-08 0:31 [PATCH] eeh_pseries: Missing break? Joe Perches 2014-03-08 16:16 ` Gavin Shan 2014-03-08 16:26 ` Joe Perches 2014-03-08 16:37 ` Gavin Shan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).