On Sat, 2020-09-26 at 09:17 -0500, Tony Asleson wrote: > On 9/26/20 3:40 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > Hello! > > > > On 25.09.2020 19:19, Tony Asleson wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tony Asleson <tasleson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata- > > > scsi.c > > > index 194dac7dbdca..13a58ed7184c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > > @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ int ata_scsi_dev_config(struct scsi_device > > > *sdev, struct ata_device *dev) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > -int ata_scsi_durable_name(const struct device *dev, char *buf, > > > size_t len) > > > +static int ata_scsi_durable_name(const struct device *dev, char > > > *buf, > > > size_t len) > > > > Why not do it in patch #6 -- when introducing the function? > > This issue was found by the intel kernel test robot in v4 patch > series. I thought it was better to have a separate commit with the > correction that matched it's signed off. Maybe that's not the > correct approach? No ... while a patch is being reviewed the purpose of review is to make it better by folding in all the comments. It then gets a changelog put below the --- v5: made X function static So people can follow how it has evolved. This is all actually described in Documentation/submitting-patches. James
