The variable agp_try_unsupported is bool type.Hence initializing
with true instead of 1. Also fixing the below checkpatch warning.
WARNING: __initdata should be placed after agp_try_unsupported
FILE: drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c:36:
static bool __initdata agp_try_unsupported = true;
Signed-off-by: Shailendra Verma <[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c b/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c
index 0ef3500..14900ea 100644
--- a/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c
+++ b/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
#define ULI_X86_64_ENU_SCR_REG 0x54
static struct resource *aperture_resource;
-static bool __initdata agp_try_unsupported = 1;
+static bool agp_try_unsupported __initdata = true;
static int agp_bridges_found;
static void amd64_tlbflush(struct agp_memory *temp)
--
1.7.9.5
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Shailendra Verma
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The variable agp_try_unsupported is bool type.Hence initializing
> with true instead of 1. Also fixing the below checkpatch warning.
Please one logical change per patch.
> WARNING: __initdata should be placed after agp_try_unsupported
> FILE: drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c:36:
> static bool __initdata agp_try_unsupported = true;
>
> Signed-off-by: Shailendra Verma <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c b/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c
> index 0ef3500..14900ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
> #define ULI_X86_64_ENU_SCR_REG 0x54
>
> static struct resource *aperture_resource;
> -static bool __initdata agp_try_unsupported = 1;
> +static bool agp_try_unsupported __initdata = true;
What issue does this fix? IOW why is assigning 1 wrong?
> static int agp_bridges_found;
--
Thanks,
//richard
Am 25.05.2015 um 23:14 schrieb Shailendra Verma:
> Hello Richard,
>
> I will separate both the changes and will send the patches to you.
>
> What issue does this fix? IOW why is assigning 1 wrong?
>
>>>>> Yes, you are correct. There will be no issue in assigning 1 to the variable. But according to coding guidelines we should only use true/false for bool type variables.
Really? I don't see this in Documentation/CodingStyle and checkpatch.pl does not bark either.
IMHO it is a matter of taste. But the individual maintainer has to decide. :-)
Thanks,
//richard
P.s: Please don't crop the list of CC when replying.