Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <6121a55d7db8cc4376c068e289fb29b9d4479dbd.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] regulator: IRQ based event/error notification
 helpers
From:   Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Reply-To: matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc:     kbuild-all@lists.01.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "agross@kernel.org" <agross@kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-power <linux-power@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vfw+5R-qN+iGC4hYSbL6phOoSZ7nuNsyroQPODxEmMaNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a22cf56239512f52ae5927f226e79d890d7a1240.1620645507.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
         <202105110342.Oembupaq-lkp@intel.com>
         <CAHp75Vfw+5R-qN+iGC4hYSbL6phOoSZ7nuNsyroQPODxEmMaNA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 06:24:32 +0300
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 (3.34.4-1.fc31) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andy, All,

On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 23:20 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:46 PM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> wrote:

> > 
> >    include/linux/bitops.h:35:2: warning: this 'for' clause does not
> > guard... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
> >       35 |  for ((bit) = find_first_bit((addr), (size));  \
> >          |  ^~~
> >    drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c:242:3: note: in expansion of
> > macro 'for_each_set_bit'
> >      242 |   for_each_set_bit(j, &stat->notifs, BITS_PER_TYPE(stat-
> > >notifs))
> >          |   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >    drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c:244:4: note: ...this statement,
> > but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it were guarded by
> > the 'for'
> 
> Seems like missed {}
> 
> Matti, there is a serious question: how had you tested this...

I actually did. I did not just run rebase for the series and threw new
version but I actually did run this in real HW, with real break-out
board and with a fresh info print to see the event being sent.

> (besides obvious compilation error)
> Perhaps you have to fix your process somewhere to avoid missing
> important steps?

Yes. Can't deny this. And process fix should be simple. If code/patch
needs a change (even a print removal/print severity change/parameter
change)  - then it needs to be tested again prior formatting the
patches.

Sorry folks.

--Matti