On 2023/9/12 17:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 01:32:02PM +0800, Ken Xue wrote:
On 2023/9/11 17:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Ken Xue wrote:
...
2) test robot reported some compile warnings and errors detected by test
robot which is fixed in V2.
Yes and that's what I'm asking about. You are not supposed to add it as the
initial problem, the patch is trying to solve, has _not_ been reported by LKP,
hasn't it?
...
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309080315.txQUEyHQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309080239.IiC7uLpW-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309080351.xHt2qhP2-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Are you sure?
Just some errors/warnings from the v1 patch.
Same as above.
Get it. Those info will not be included in commit message.
...
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
There are no users of this header.
Check how forward declaration can be used (as it's done in many other headers).
Yes, "struct acpi_device" is defined in "include/acpi/acpi_bus.h", but
include acpi_bus.h alone will lead to more compile issues.
Regarding "forward declaration", how about
typedef struct acpi_device *acpi_device;
Is it a forward declaration?
Ok, I will use "struct acpi_device;"
