On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:59:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:48:41AM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote: > > As in the drm core? Not as far as I could tell... > > A good time to add it then I guess ;) I thought we do normalize this somewhere. In other words your static code analyser didn't read the code well enough probably ;-) On that topic: Your patch lacks motivation. Yes I can usually guess when it's due to static analyzer checks, but you need to explain that. And you need to explain what exactly the analyzer is complaining about. There's some conflicting opinions about whether you're allowed to name the tool itself, I personally don't care much but would appreciate those details too. But the details of what the static analyzer discovered and _must_ be in the commit message. Otherwise no way to review whether your patch fixes the problem in a reasonable way. This means please resend your entire pile of recent submission. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
