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@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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
