Fix the following coding style errors in
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c:
1. initializing lnet_table_header (static pointer) to NULL
2. missing spaces around '='
There's a third coding style error in this file which I've chosen to
not fix for clarity's sake. It is: initializing min_watchdog_ratelimit
(static int) to 0
Signed-off-by: Tal Shorer <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/
libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
index c539e37..acc2e10 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
#include <asm/div64.h>
#include "../tracefile.h"
-static struct ctl_table_header *lnet_table_header = NULL;
+static struct ctl_table_header *lnet_table_header;
extern char lnet_upcall[1024];
/**
* The path of debug log dump upcall script.
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int proc_console_backoff(struct ctl_table
*table, int write,
dummy.proc_handler = &proc_dointvec;
if (!write) { /* read */
- backoff= libcfs_console_backoff;
+ backoff = libcfs_console_backoff;
rc = proc_dointvec(&dummy, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
return rc;
}
--
2.2.2
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:20:30PM +0200, Tal Shorer wrote:
> Fix the following coding style errors in
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c:
> 1. initializing lnet_table_header (static pointer) to NULL
> 2. missing spaces around '='
Those are two different things, and should be 2 different patches.
Please split up and resend that way.
> There's a third coding style error in this file which I've chosen to
> not fix for clarity's sake. It is: initializing min_watchdog_ratelimit
> (static int) to 0
Please fix that too, it's not correct. Drop the comment there if you
think that's confusing.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Feb 9, 2015, at 4:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There's a third coding style error in this file which I've chosen to
>> not fix for clarity's sake. It is: initializing min_watchdog_ratelimit
>> (static int) to 0
>
> Please fix that too, it's not correct. Drop the comment there if you
> think that's confusing.
What's not correct there, I wonder? Just assignment of 0 to a static variable
to get some extra clarity?
The code in the question is:
static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0; /* disable ratelimiting */
static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */
So if you drop both = 0 and the comment, I think it would become even more cryptic?
How about something like this then (not a proper patch, but just to demonstrate
the idea):
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int proc_dobitmasks(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
__proc_dobitmasks);
}
-static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0; /* disable ratelimiting */
+static int zero;
static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */
static int __proc_dump_kernel(void *data, int write,
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ static struct ctl_table lnet_table[] = {
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
.mode = 0644,
.proc_handler = &proc_dointvec_minmax,
- .extra1 = &min_watchdog_ratelimit,
+ .extra1 = &zero, /* Disable ratelimiting */
.extra2 = &max_watchdog_ratelimit,
},
{
Bye,
Oleg-
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:34:07AM +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 4:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There's a third coding style error in this file which I've chosen to
> >> not fix for clarity's sake. It is: initializing min_watchdog_ratelimit
> >> (static int) to 0
> >
> > Please fix that too, it's not correct. Drop the comment there if you
> > think that's confusing.
>
> What's not correct there, I wonder? Just assignment of 0 to a static variable
> to get some extra clarity?
> The code in the question is:
>
> static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0; /* disable ratelimiting */
> static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */
>
> So if you drop both = 0 and the comment, I think it would become even more cryptic?
>
> How about something like this then (not a proper patch, but just to demonstrate
> the idea):
>
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int proc_dobitmasks(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> __proc_dobitmasks);
> }
>
> -static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0; /* disable ratelimiting */
> +static int zero;
> static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */
Ick, no, just do like other places have done:
static int min_watchdog_ratelimit; /* = 0 disable ratelimiting */