Re: [PATCH v1 07/13] fbdev: pxafb: use devm_kmemdup_array()

Raag Jadav
2025-02-24T12:22:15Z

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:41:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:24:08PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:58:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 05:41:24AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Raag,
> > > >
> > > > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> > > >
> > > > [auto build test WARNING on b16e9f8547a328b19af59afc213ce323124d11e9]
> > > >
> > > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Raag-Jadav/ASoC-Intel-avs-use-devm_kmemdup_array/20250222-010322
> > > > base: b16e9f8547a328b19af59afc213ce323124d11e9
> > > > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250221165333.2780888-8-raag.jadav%40intel.com
> > > > patch subject: [PATCH v1 07/13] fbdev: pxafb: use devm_kmemdup_array()
> > > > config: arm-randconfig-004-20250222 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250222/202502220449.DvJuMgsL-lkp@intel.com/config)
> > > > compiler: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
> > > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250222/202502220449.DvJuMgsL-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> > > >
> > > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502220449.DvJuMgsL-lkp@intel.com/
> > > >
> > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > >
> > > > drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c: In function 'pxafb_probe':
> > > > >> drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c:2236:13: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
> > > > 2236 | int i, irq, ret;
> > > > | ^
> > >
> > > Ragg, please, fix this, and issue a v2 with the link to fixed PR:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z7xGpz3Q4Zj6YHx7@black.fi.intel.com.
> >
> > Sure, but perhaps wait a few days for review comments.
>
> Then perhaps answering to the cover letter that the maintainers who want to
> apply should use the updated PR?

Okay, but I'm not sure how this plays out for those who already pulled
the old PR, i.e. Sebastian.

Anything to worry about here?

Raag