On 18 August 2017 at 18:58, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 18 August 2017 at 09:36, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 18 August 2017 at 09:26, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> -static void for_each_tracepoint_range(struct tracepoint * const *begin,
>> >>> - struct tracepoint * const *end,
>> >>> +static void for_each_tracepoint_range(const void *begin, const void *end,
>> >>> void (*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
>> >>> void *priv)
>> >>> {
>> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PREL32_RELOCATIONS
>> >>> + const signed int *iter;
>> >>> +
>> >>> + if (!begin)
>> >>> + return;
>> >>> + for (iter = begin; iter < (signed int *)end; iter++) {
>> >>> + fct((struct tracepoint *)((unsigned long)iter + *iter), priv);
>> >>> + }
>> >>
>> >> I think checkpatch is correct here to complain about the unnecessary curly braces
>> >> here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Fair enough. I will clean up to the extent feasible.
>> >
>>
>> OK, in an honest attempt to at least remove as many of the checkpatch
>> errors as I can, [...]
>
> Note that I actually agreed with your list of checkpatch bogosities - the one I
> commented on was the only thing that needed fixing, IMHO.
>
Ah ok. Well, I think the code has improved slightly in some ways as a
result, so I will just back out the bogus changes for v3.
